Nobody has stopped Alex Jones from saying anything. He is free to spout off any stupid, ignorant and incendiary idea he likes. He has simply been denied access to Facebook, which was never a constitutional right of his or anyone else.
11
Twitter Dorsey won't do the same,met in oval office but never warned Trump,he will continue to sell us out and Trump,the ultimate white nationalist,will tweet his cruelty and lies without any consequence from Dorsey.
1
I have no problem with this at all so long as the process of who is being banned becomes clear and open to the public. Facebook is a publicly held company who has to make quarterly earnings reports wherein they give detailed data from which investors make their decisions. I need to know how the sausage is made on this one. I would hate to find out a left-wing activist group like the Southern Poverty Law Center was consulted in making this list. Personally, I would feel much better if an independent auditor developed the list and then gave it to Facebook, all in the open.
For better or worse, Facebook is at the point MSFT was in the 1990s, AT&T was before that....
2
Many comments suggest that Facebook is obstructing freedom of speech. As a private enterprise that accepts no public funds, Facebook may choose to allow, or suppress, any content that they choose and for whatever reason they choose. Fox News does this all the time. In fact all publications do this all the time. It is only if the government directs what can and cannot be published that freedom of speech is threatened. Even the government can restrict speech if the enterprise accepts taxpayer money. Look at various coercive government actions surrounding abortion. So, if you have a beef with Facebook's decisions, that's fine. But do not characterize it as obstructing freedom of speech.
376
@syfredrick wouldn't this same logic apply to the bakery that refused service to a gay couple? Supreme Court ultimately sided with the baker, absolving them of discrimination. They also were a private enterprise taking no public funds, and if you replace "allow, or suppress any content" with "service, or not service any customer", the argument is very similar.
I 100% support Facebook banning hate from their platform, but it's a slippery slope.
6
Thank you for your reasonable and accurate response. People think it’s their “right” to say whatever they want without consequences. You have a first amendment right to say what you want without being ARRESTED for it-but there may still be consequences for it. In this case Facebook exercising its right as a non-governmental entity to control its content. Don’t like it? Then make yourself a picket sign and march down to city hall. You won’t be arrested, but you might just lose your job.
18
@NB Do you consider posting fake news free speech? Actually from a theoretical perspective I do, technically you should be allowed saying anything you want. The only problem is that misinformation can be a serious threat to inner security and democracy. People like Alex Jones crossed far to many lines and need to be stopped.
7
Using a private platform with existing community rules on harassment and incitement are outside the realm of free speech. Yes, the Constitution guarantees this right, so these extremists could set up their own "Facebook" and "YouTube" where they can all congregate and live happily together. That is the definition of free speech. Create your own community and not relying on someone else's to spread your hate is what these people can do as is their right.
5
And? It doesn't make FB one iota less evil IMO.
3
Facebook is littered with idiots driven by likes. The best quick change Facebook could make is eliminate publishing like counts.
2
I find i funny that before Trump there wasn’t as much need to censor public hate speech. It tended to exist more privately. 2c.
2
Facebook is not an arm of the government. It's not even the press. It does not have to honor free speech as stringently as the government, or the press, and in fact runs the risk of lawsuits if it allows speech that results in harm to individuals or groups that are the targets of hate and violence spread on Facebook.
If one needs to spout the stuff, create your own social media service.
7
Alex Jones doesn't do anything that U.S. President Donald Trump doesn't do. Thus, this is censorship. And it's not just a coincidence that this silencing of certain voices and willful bypassing of judgement on others comes at a time when Facebook is facing ever-growing government scrutiny. Wake up. people. This is all part of a game. It is not some newfound ethical push on behalf of Mr. Zuckerberg, who has, time and time again, proven himself to have the same penchant for unapologetic lying that he accuses Alex Jones of possessing.
1
Better Oh! so late than never. However, what is going to be the impact of Facebook's allegedly new approach i.e. more privacy & encryption. Great - so now all the haters are going to be able to communicate and spread their hate in private & protected from law enforcement. Does Facebook ever think through the consequences of its models?
2
How is it even possible that there are so many people stupid enough to believe, or even follow, this (Alex Jones) insane lying rotten apple?
Shutting his hatred and access to a filterless media is more than appropriate in this instance. There is a limit to freedom of speech when its comes to hate- and conspiracy-mongering. John Oliver is quite correct - shame one anyone that stupid.
This nothing has taken advantage of our Democracy long enough and it is our right to shut him down - he has passed the red line by far. Let him publicly prowl the streets of NYC if he wants, spouting his hatred and sedition - and see what happens there.
4
I guess if we can't ban Alex Jones from Earth, this will have to do. Imagine being the parent of one of Sandy Hook kids. Jones should endure a Sisyphusian fate - put him in a cell and have someone slap his head over and over, while someone else tells him to stop complaining, it's not really happening.
5
Freedom of speech does not mean you can require people to broadcast your speech at their expense.
It's as simple as that. Facebook, Twitter, all of these websites are commercial enterprises paying millions in server fees and technicians and infrastructure and monitoring to keep their platform up. Freedom of speech has never included a right to require someone else to publish your speech.
And given that all of the figures mentioned have incited violence, attacks, threats to their targets, this doesn't even fall into free speech - there are limits to free speech - slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.
4
The main stream media pushed Russian Collusion conspiracy for over two years, which did actual enormous damage to our body politic - and they are not banned? Just stupidity and virtue signaling in the highest echelons of our culture today. And they are judging others? Facebook and the main stream media are destroying our country and its core values. Of course, they consider themselves smarter than everyone else. Hubris.
2
Yes, agreed there. Why are we banning Jones and Watson, but not others who babble just as much nonsense as they thought Jones did? (Not versed on Jones, but I know of many who are not credible and are hyper-partisan.)
“I’m sure they’re going to make a slippery-slope argument here,”
And I would say, rightfully so. For example, what is misinformation that deserves censorship? Should anti-vaxxers be subject to censorship? After all, they are promoting a position that could be considered dangerous and is clearly against the professional opinion of the vast majority of health professionals. And if this standard does apply, who decides which prevailing consensus can or can not be challenged?
This really IS a slippery slope!
2
Farrakhan is supported and promoted by some of the most powerful black Democrats, "civil rights" activists, and entertainers. It is obvious that the left treads carefully on this to avoid alienating blacks and Muslims. Shame on them. At least the right doesn't promote themselves as the "anti-bigotry" party.
1
FB is a private business and can set its user rules as they see fit, ethics being an apparently minor consideration. However, a model for social media to consider is that of the credit rating agencies that provide independent assessments of credit-worthiness to banks. FB and other platforms could sponsor such an independent group or groups to establish acceptable behaviors and adjudicate complaints and conflicts. They could even rate users, so that other users would be informed about their honesty and trustworthiness.
If those running the social media platforms don't keep those who abuse on-line privileges in line, they risk losing users (the product that they sell to advertisers), or bringing governments down on them, their worst nightmare.
1
People conflate freedom of speech with the freedom to be heard. You have a right to speak, and publications have a right to publish, but you do not have a right to be published. Otherwise I could sue the New York Times every time they rejected one of my submitted op-ed pieces.
Facebook and the rest are not public squares; they are publishing platforms, because you don't really choose what you see. Algorithms adjust the content you see to whatever your history says you're most interested in, because the goal is to keep you on that site for as long as possible. At its core, this is a money game: these sites are all private squares with the owners picking only the speakers who bring in the highest ticket revenues.
These bans don't mean anything other than Facebook's attempt at PR recovery. But they're certainly no infringement of any rights whatsoever. Maybe instead of spending all day on social media, we should spend more time reading our constitutions.
8
@Claire yep
“Move fast and break things” is the FB way. Why can’t they move fast when repairing things? This took way too long.
3
This is what happens when you privatize the public square. Another step in the long-term plan of corporations to privatize everything: prisons, sports, education, military, .... even your discarded DNA can be owned and monetized by someone else. With the Citizens United case, the United Corporations of America is quickly becoming a reality.
Social media companies want you to think that you have to be connected to their platform to lead a meaningful life. So once you've bought into that idea and offered yourself up to Lord Zuckerberg, if you become exiled from Facebook it feels as though you've lost a fundamental right. You may have rights in the public square; not on a private platform. "We reserve the right to refuse service" isn't some new-fangled corporate policy.
3
Sign.
This just in: this ain’t “the public square.” What it is, is electronic media that Facebook partly invented. It’s not like they seized every soapbox in Hyde Park or something.
3
Where are the internet equality people on this, I wonder?
4
Rather than banning selective view points why not flag them as being questionable. Banning anyone from what has become the public square of debate is wrong. In a politically polarized environment whichever side is in political control will determine what is hate speech and what is true. this would be much more harmful than anything Louis Farrakhan or Alex Jones could ever spew.
3
I wouldn't quote Chomsky - an effete intellectual snob - if I were you.
1
Leftists everywhere celebrate this suppression of speech and great purge. And yet the Antifa flag still flies across all social media platforms. Chilling. What will you do when they come for you?
3
Laugh.
2
@Hank
False equivalence alert
3
Now if we could only get rid of other wackos on media like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, LaPierre, Loesch .....
7
@Dendreon How about Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell?
2
A person who accuses parents of slain children of lying about their deaths, and whose followers target the parents, is not simply "controversial," he is cruel and heartless. Banning him from social media should have been a no-brainer.
8
Are they taking down Rachel Maddow? If fomenting conspiracy theories is the hurdle, she more than qualifies. Darn how we all almost went without heat last winter because of the Russians!
5
The only thing I have to say is that the NYT’s should have left out the word “conservatives” because these people are not conservatives, these individuals are enablers and spreaders of hatred, racism, lies and division whose only agenda is to promote violence and pit man against man (or human against human so nobody whines about the use of the phrase.)
I believe wholeheartedly in Free Speech, but free speech should be about truth and honesty and justice and shedding light on the darkness, not racism and hatred and conspiracies and invoking violence. So with that I applaud Facebook for banning these horrible excuses for human beings.
39
@David Parchert Alex has conspiracy stories... and is ridiculous. But if he is banned, shouldn't the History channel be banned outright as well?
Milo is a jerk but but has never called for anyone to be hurt.
Farrakhan has called for people to be harmed.
I don't mind censorship and favoritism on a private organization. But to claim that they are NOT favoring groups and picking and choosing which people to ban with measures and standards that are not applied to all equally - this is false advertising !!
1
Never? Maybe check with Leslie Jones on that.
But if you can’t see a diff between the History Channel and Infowars’ far, far right nuttery, I don’t see how much of anything can be explained to you.
12
I'm not an attorney, but while free speech is certainly a basic Constitutional right, I'm not sure it means that one can say whatever they want wherever they want. FaceBook is a private entity that has the right to place rules around its use. A courtroom, the workplace, etc. also place rules around speech. For those claiming Jones' rights are being violated...not so sure here. He can still pump out his water, vitamins and other snake oil along with his inane conspiracy theories on his website and with the other kooks who seek to profit from his brand of hate.
4
Louis Farrakhn is not a right wing flake. He's an epicenter of racist, anti-Semitic sentiment among the African American community in the United States.
Congratulations to facebook. Maybe I'll go back there now.
4
For those insisting that this is an issue of freedom of speech, may I remind you that Alex Jones has his very own website where he is free to spew his nonsense to his heart's content. He is not being denied any freedom to speak; he is being denied a particular (private) platform!
109
@Mark Kessinger
No one is denying Alex Jones his right to speak or to publish. But the first amendment does not guarantee unlimited free speech. It is not legal to incite violence, to shout fire in a theater, to publish libel. And as a private business, facebook, or any media, is not required to give Alex Jones a platform. So sure ... let him spew his bile. But once he starts publishing the names and addresses of those whom he is targeting for violent reprisal, his freedom of speech is not guaranteed
6
'If we do not believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.' -Noam Chomsky
64
@Kaley
Alex Jones, et al. still have free speech. Why do so many imply that their removal from Facebook, a privately owned entity, is a violation of their rights? It’s not.
If someone walked into your home, and started screaming obscenities and threatening you, would you allow it to continue, because you believe in their right to free speech?
78
@Kaley
He's entitled to expression but not to use the monolith that is FB to damage the reputations of others or to lie for profit. Similarly, the NYT can choose to publish (or not) your and my comments based on standards that they establish. If they don't like what I have to say then I'll need to say it elsewhere.
That a ban from FB feels like ostracism is because we (as a society) have decided that it is the end-all-be-all medium for connecting with news, ideas, and each other. It still is a product/service being offered by a corporation and we lack rights in that space that we have in truly public space. (I've never had a FB account, for what it's worth...)
18
@Rikki
You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with first amendment protections! Freedom of speech is the ability to articulate your view and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. First amendment protections don't apply to private entities, true, but that's also beside the point.
13
Facebook is merely playing whack-a-mole with people whose politics leftie FB does not agree with. Alternate platforms will spring up like dandelions and FB will eventually devolve to a site for cute cat videos and commercials.
1
@Neocynic - Just a point of clarification: dissemination of misinformation and lies, and inciting fear, loathing and violence, are not considered by most intelligent people as "politics." Rather, they are socially reprehensible acts of aggression. Ponder that.
8
Banning Louis Farrakhan for suggesting that Zionism is racism does little to balance out the spewings of the other raging provocateurs on this list.
I am not familiar with these people but how can this Facebook censoring be seen as positive? Isn't it authoritarian and at root fascist? Ultimately, who gets to decide what voices are "true" and which "false?"
I imagine Donald Trump may be the next voice "silenced." All in all, a sad state of events.
80
@Sarah You raise a fair point, however, Donald Trump is very clear about his incitement of violence. Just because he's president doesn't mean he gets to spew whatever hatred he wants.
Curious if you think that terrorist groups (or their supporters) should have free reign in Facebook, or is it selective?
105
No one is entitled to post on social media.
224
@Sarah look Karl Popper and his paradox. The tolerant have to be intolerant of those that preach hate and intolerance.
45
Good on FB and IG
The spread of hate and fear has gotten way out of control in the USA, and these hate and fear mongers that were banned helped lead the way.
Now, it's time to deal with the lead hate and fear monger.
7
These people seem to think that their free speech is being somehow infringed. It's not. They are still as free as they ever were to take to a medium more historically suited for their ilk: a sandwich board on a street corner and bug-eyed, sweaty yelling.
7
Farrakhan is a regular commentator on MSNBC. Why would someone who hates Trump and Republicans be banned from a liberal media like Facebook?
Free speech does not equal free reach.
Zuck should have done this years ago; these incendiary, false narratives have gone unchecked for far too long.
33
I am totally against anyone censoring anything. This is going down the wrong path. You could possibly cite all left wing speech as hate speech depending which side you are on. I like Facebook but now hope they will be broken up.
2
@Chris Anderson - Ever list to InfoWars? Maybe you should.
2
Lies are lies are lies. Alex Jones should be in jail.
1
Federal law (the telecommunications decency act) protects social media giants from the responsibilities that traditional media must abide by. Ending this giant loophole would do the US and the world a great deal of good.
Social media companies should be held responsible for what is published on their platforms the same way traditional media companies are held responsible for what they publish. Let social media companies get sued for liable, slander, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, etc. Online discourse would improve and the bogus stories and foreign government interference in elections would decline.
2
Many people here seem to be confused when they argue that Facebook's move interferes with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment relates to limitations placed upon the government ("Congress shall pass no laws..."). For good or ill, Facebook is not so bound, although in this case I am glad that Facebook has finally come to this decision. It makes little difference to me because I have long ago departed from Facebook and its intrusions into our lives.
6
Jones is the personification of the jerk who yells "FIRE!!" in a crowded movie theater.
He is a menace to a civilized people.
4
I do not follow any social media so although I have heard of these conservative commentator, not sure how "bad" they are. Has FB banned any antifa groups, they actually seem to start a lot of real violence? Or don't they use FB.
2
@TED338do some “research”, watch Info Wars, and see what you think about their content.
1
@TED338 - "Antifa" = Anti-fascist.
You have a problem with that?
4
@NativeSon
Yes, I have a huge problem with anyone using the despicable label of fascist against anyone with a different point of view. And using the cover of that word for violence and vandalism. I doubt any of them know what the word truly means and connotes.
1
In all sincerity, why hasn't Donald J. Trump been banned from Twitter? He constantly lies, intentionally misinforms, incites hate, misrepresents important people and facts, and uses the platform to attack others, bully women and insult people and companies without care or consequences.
Let's be honest, that would land most people onto trouble. So why has he not been banned or at least censored? He would be the perfect test dummy for Twitter creating a more sane, honest and decent platform.
8
@RBC
Trump hasn’t been banned from Twitter because Dorsey makes a fortune off of him.
5
@db2 Yes, I agree. And apparently making money is all this is about, who cares about decency to your fellow citizens?
....all of which reinforces the notion that social media is a really bad idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm addicted to it like everybody else. But when a private company steps forward to promote itself as a public forum, then turns around and retreats because people are not nice in a public forum, you just have to wonder what they were thinking in the first place. Probably "This will be a big sell with advertisers, and we'll play the inevitable free speech issues by ear." Duh.
2
It seems to me, a better approach would be to put a kind of warning label on "fake" news to say that is particular account has not been verified, or something to this effect.
While, of course, I have to agree that the content that Facebook is deleting here is offensive and potentially harmful, so are cigarettes and drugs. That's why they carry warning labels. People still abuse them, but that is their choice.
Banning any kind of free speech is dangerously close to totalitarianism. Though I am a Lefty through and through, I have worried for a long time that our fanaticism with regard to politically correct speech, or right speech and wrong speech, can lead us down a road where freedom of speech is no longer acceptable. We may yet reap what we sow on this one.
2
@Manuela - FB is a private entity able to limit the content of what people post/say/do. Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater... Freedom of speech pertains to the government, not a private business.
3
Whats next?
Anti-Abortionists?
Death Penalty Advocates?
The NRA?
Climate Deniers?
Capitalists?
Brexit supporters?
3
Probably not. The platforms are not banning people because of ideology, but because they can’t take the heat.
Every time they ban a major contributor they take a revenue hit.
1
Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes.
1
@Bruce Thomson I recommend watching Info Wars for ten minutes and come to your own conclusion of the content.
1
Because I fear and despise censorship, last year I left Facebook, knowing this day would eventually come. The platform, itself, is the problem - giving anyone access to millions of people in private, non-monitored settings. With no one else present to immediately identify false claims, people such as Jones can introduce anything they please, knowing the power of first impressions. Even though I do not read ads and ignore posts of non-friends, I know too many who use FB as an actual source of news. Furthermore, I do not want to increase the profits of anyone who enables such a situation to exist. Therefore, no longer using FB is my act of resistance, as painful as it’s been to lose regular contact with some people.
1
I took the same course of action a year or so back for the same reasons, and as it became clear that fb had been manipulated by the Russians, then tried to hide the fact and had no idea how to deal with the abuse. Good riddance.
1
Censorship is always bad. This latest PC malarkey is the stuff of fascism, no matter who it is presently directed against, or who is deciding what should be banned (as "hate speech" or whatever subjective labeling is being applied). If you are so mentally weak that speech of any sort can actually mold your thinking, or give you the vapors, then "protecting" you from such speech is a fool's errand anyway.
7
@Spook - It is interesting to note that fascism historically has been born out of the kind of "free speech" that so many here seem to hold sacred. When "free speech" becomes nothing more than fiery propaganda intended to incite violence, fear, paranoia and hatred it becomes toxic, subversive, a weapon of war. If we think the "purveyors of fine whine" who have been banned by FB are not dangerous to our society...if we think they have NOT almost singlehandedly created today's culture of OUTRAGE! we are simply not paying attention.
3
Facebook has to be submited to the same laws and rules than other medias, like the New York Times. Period.
1
The New York Times does not have to publish Alex Jones screeds.
If Twitter was "very discriminatory", Trump would have been banned long ago.
3
An awful lot of readers are making the point that Facebook is a private company, while ignoring that other companies involved in the dissemination of news are subject to FCC regulations. The fact that Facebook utilizes different technology to accomplish the same task hardly makes it any less of a platform for the dissemination of news, or for regulation guided by first amendment principles.
4
@Middleman MD It isn't "news" that the FCC regulates, it's the public airwaves. The FCC doesn't regulate Fox News, CNN or Facebook. They regulate broadcasting.
It is astonishing how many people truly do not understand what the first amendment really means, and are also unaware that they lack this understanding. What is really sad about this situation is how many people are making arguments but have no clue what they are talking about. Another case of Dunning and Kruger in action.
2
Good.
Especially since association with "wild accusiations" can be mixed with truth, there should be a Minesterium to oversee what can be regarded as correct information. To counter dangerous conspiarcy-theories it should therefore be suggested that all relevant public information to flow through a Minesterium of Truth.
And to have this MOT qualitychecked by Government at all times.
4
Facebook is a private company and therefore has the right to decide who can use it's platform and who can't. You can choose to disagree with their decision on who they banned but the reality is they are free to do as they please. In addition, they are doing this in response to public criticism about them providing a platform for hate speech etc. All of the banned individuals are free to continue their racist campaigns on other platforms or on their own websites but there is no reason Facebook has to provide them with a place to do that. On a separate note, I see many comments applauding Alex Jones being banned (he is despicable) but very, very few about Louis Farrakhan who is one of the most vitriolic hate mongers out there. I wonder why that is?
9
Why isn't Trump on the list?
4
I note that many of the people banned were harassing individuals. That’s a reasonable basis for banning them and not protected by the First Amendment.
5
This decision—although right in most respects—should have been made by a government representing the people. Not billionaires behind closed doors. Thus it is another failure of the US Republican-led Congress.
3
Call it by its name: a political purge by Founding Father Mark Zuckerberg.
6
@nomad127 - Most people will call it by another name: a long overdo attempt to tamp down the calculated rhetoric of hate, violence, misinformation and lies. I wholly applaud Facebook for doing this: “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology.”
It's a beautiful day!
12
Agree with you, dean. Long overdue.
@dean bush
So arbitrary, so political. Zuckerberg outsourcing decisions to the likes of Angelo Carusone and the Atlantic Council? Beautiful day, indeed!
3
The government, once again asleep at the switch, presumably preoccupied with whether Mueller agreed with Barr, has once again failed in its duty to protect consumers from another monopoly. It is about time that they recognize that monopoly media outlets must be broken up. It appears that freedom of speech has been relegated to a "nice to think about" concept in this country.
5
@William Stuber - As a private company - not a public entity - Facebook has the right to determine how its platform is used, and who can have presence on it. Just as Fox News is free to determine when it reports real news, and when it fabricates its famous "fake news." Those rights supercede the right to free speech in a public place. I applaud Facebook for taking away these nut jobs' platform for spreading lies and inciting violence and hatred so unashamedly.
7
A good point. Maybe what needs to happen is for the social media world to become as parsed as the broadcast news world, and let each sub-faction of american life get it’s feeds from the platform of its choice, unpolluted by opposing points of view. FoxBook, anyone?
2
In case this isn’t obvious, Alex Jones is no longer fringe; he’s mainstream Republican. He used to be fringe, just like all other white nationalists, but not any more.
Go look at the crowd any Trump rally and this too should be obvious: the Republican Party, which used to be a Conservative party with a white nationalist fringe, is now the reverse.
I’m glad we got that straightened out.
5
Facebook and it’s prodigy are essentially evil. Never have had an account, never will. That said, it is sad but true how many people I know value the “friend” count and “likes” in their life. Personally, I think it has contributed heavily to the self absorbed, isolated life so many people live now. Of those that work there, one has to really wonder about the worth of their careers......analogous to working for a tobacco or opioid company as far as I am concerned.
3
@Truthbeknown - except...your personal distaste for social media platforms has nothing to do with this particular issue. If one has never actively participated in Facebook, how can one's mind be so agitated by its existence?
3
Because it’s negative societal effects are so pervasive.
1
Well, the Left got their wish: Silence those awful conservative voices! Oh, and you threw in a couple of extreme Leftist voices too, so you can seem fair and all.
This has to be the most evil, wrongheaded move Liberals have ever foisted on the American public. There is no stopping you now, is there. It won't be Alex Jones next, or even a Louis Farrakhan.
You'll only be satisfied when every voice that does not comport itself and fully embrace Leftist ideology will be....silenced. Congratulations, it only took us 243 years to upend perhaps the single most cherished fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution.
Well done, Libs!
5
@David Bartlett well it’s a start. When Alex and his gang started trying to debunk Sandy Hook, parents who’s children were murdered were told they were crisis actors. Families had to move to avoid the backlash from the followers of Alex Jones because they were harassed non-stop and threatened. It has to stop somewhere and sometime.
3
Thank you. It wasn’t easy, but it was worth the effort. Now we move on to the 2nd amendment. Wish us luck!
2
@David Bartlett What are you talking about ? The actual president of the USA was elected with those ideas and helped by some who idealize fascists ideas , the US Senate is fully conservative in majority . Are you pretending now that the left has full overall unlimited power because an extremist was excluded from a social website ?
And that the identity of your nation is corrupted by that ?
Who is going to believe you ?
Pure typical republican fabrication.
2
It took them damn too long to do what everyone knows was necessary. What Jones perpetrated against innocents for profits is probably the most egregious example of the abuse of social media. Facebook and its ilk deserve the harm to their reputations that has developed.
6
People of good will loathe the message. That said; Facebook is essentially a surrogate for the mainstream media and universities leading and implementing calls for censorship on the basis of ideology, ironically reminiscent of the McCarthy era, a time when they properly and vigorously fought them tooth and nail.
The malignant turnabout is chilling in that it suggests that the press and academic institutions no longer fully support the principles embodied in The First Amendment thus far assiduously protected by the Supreme Court and in fact seem to be bent on promoting their erosion.
Freedom has its dangers. However, in light of the history of platform denial and ideas banning in the name of the general good, I suggest that the notion that the freedom is enhanced by rhetorical restriction is invidious
5
Banning conservative voices and even a few leftist voices like Farrakhan is a slippery slope. None of them should be banned.
I find it odd that the old leftists...the ones who were fighting in the streets in the ‘60s and ‘70s against censorship and “The Man” are all in on censorship.
8
@Cjmesq0
When a person's safety comes into play based on the rhetoric of people like Jones, they should no longer be afforded the privilege of the First Amendment. Period. The parents of the children murdered in Newtown have received numerous death threats, harassing people like Leslie Jones for no reason does not afford you First Amendment rights. These people are nothing but bullies who have finally been shown the door.
4
This is a form of censorship giving much too much power to private hands. It is a very slippery slope in a wolrd where government cede what should be their domain to private interests. You cannot have a public forum like Facebook and then ban ideas you don't like. If there is something illegal, then take it to court.
I like none of the people banned but I agree with Voltaire.
5
@George Kazolias What do you know about Voltaire ? Have you even read one of his books ? And what is his link with that story ? Voltaire was a liberal that you would hate today .
1
In the land of Holy Capitalism, the way out of this ruthless, totalitarian censorship is clear. The viciously oppressed and heartlessly silenced should start their own media platforms, and celebrate pulling themselves up by their velcro shoe fasteners.
2
I’m not confused by the difference between being banned on certain media like Facebook and free speech.
There have always been limitations on access to media. E.g. Newspaper editors continue to decide whose letters will be published. Facebook’s recent moves are not much different.
Free speech, in contrast, is a principle where ideas can be articulated without retaliation or censorship by the government.
In the USA, we hold the free speech dear, but have not restricted private companies from imposing their own limits on what speech to broadcast.
8
@TomD The concept of Free speech is very confused in the USA . Like freedom or Liberty .People use them but they don't bother knowing what they mean .They use them as flags of their own beliefs .
Could the internet finally be growing up? Dear, sweet God, I really hope so.
5
@Bill The internet is not growing up. Rather, a small number of companies with a nearly monopolistic control over modern platforms for discussion have arrogated to themselves the power of deciding what represents "truth," and what opinions you may be allowed to discuss.
Meanwhile, supposed "liberals" cheer on the illiberty of granting a handful of billionaires decision making power over what ideas may be expressed by modern means of communication, because those billionaires happen to think in the way that liberals believe to be correct.
Nowhere does it seem to occur to liberals that other people may one day take control of Facebook and Twitter, and that these people may have radically different opinions on what is "true," or what is appropriate.
Nor does the possibility seem to occur to liberals that what they consider to be true, accurate, and reasonable may, in fact, turn out not to be so.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter may be private companies, but collectively they have too much control over the modern day public square. Their actions, appealing as they may be to some, are Orwellian and leading us all down a dark path. It is time for the government either to break up their collective monopoly, or else to subject them to regulation in line with the 1st Amendment.
2
All political persuasions should be banned on social media, social media should be just about advertising, family, friends, cats , dogs and selfies and silly stuff. The world would be much better for it.
1
@Sarah Truth or lies, Sandy Hook actually happened. That is a fact, that is truth. Any person who dispute that it happened is lying and causing even more harm to the survivors, and the families who have suffered such devestating loss. I am more than tired of people who use free speech as an excuse to perpetuate hate and fear. As to your last question no they will not ban Donald Trump, even though he meets the requirements because all of his utterences need to be recorded.
13
When is Will Sasso going to play Jones in a movie? Sorry Will, but the resemblance is striking.
1
The extreme right is now trying to politicize the issue and make themselves scapegoats because there are no perceived ultra left racists, conspiracy theorists or plain lunatics.
Just because Trump said (after Charlottesville) there are some fine people on both sides does that mean that therefore there ‘Must’ be bad people on both sides as well.
If our inability and lack of moral standings cannot identify groups of people solely on their hate-mongering without saying there ‘Must’ be extremists on the opposite side of the political spectrum - we have lost our way.
2
I really dispose Alex Jones and that Milos dude, and all the neonzis, but I don’t think Social media outlets should pick and choose. They shouldn’t have the duty, and perhaps not the right. Facebook should not be to blame for all the nyt jobs out there. People need to take responsibility for what they watch, read and believe.
1
Hopefully, Twitter will follow suit and bar Trump from inciting violence. Just delete those tweets that are hateful, Twitter.
This man is a danger to us all with the hate he spews many times a day.
STOP
6
Could somebody point me to the place in the Constitution where you have a right to force a private company to spread your money-making osychosis all over the planet?
7
@Robert. It’s not, but they claim to be a “neutral platform”. If they claim to be a neutral platform but are, in fact, picking and choosing winners and losers, then they need to be regulated as a media company and under FCC rules and regulations.
5
Finally, Facebook stood up and do the right thing
4
I stopped using Facebook,like, last year!
These people call themselves conservatives, but they are not really. Any true conservative would blanch at being associated with them. However, this Congress has no true conservative's left, just far right in all its horror has overtaken the sheep of this version of the Republican party. Good for Facebook for once!
2
I’m wondering if the heated political rhetoric, bordering on hate, would be considerably toned down if the President were to be divorced from tweeting.
2
First and foremost, Facebook and Twitter are private companies so they are not violating the 1st Amendment by banning hate speech practitioners. Secondly, Trump should be banned, as well, as his routinely misleading, false or outright intentionally fictitious tweets are injurious to not only individual Americans, but the nation and democracy as a whole. Furthermore, he often retweets things that are racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. Show some guts, Twitter and ban Trump!
5
Excuse me, on what account is Alex Jones a "conservative"? Edmund Burke will roll in his grave. Let us be perfectly clear. There are NO conservatives in the GOP or in America and Alex Jones is simply a lunatic.
5
It is long, long past time to regulate social media corporations like utilities. These corporations must be forced to allow all points of view using the first amendment as the ONLY standard.
There is NO SUCH thing as hate speech under the law and viewpoint discrimination is anathema to democracy. The banned people are repugnant, but only more speech defeats bad speech. Banning them forces them underground and in darkness p, democracy is dead.
1
So what's the big deal if the guy stole the idea for a social networking platform from the people that hired him to write the code for it. Business leaders do that all the time. It's not like he's so evil that he'll use his stolen power to destroy free speech or something. Geez, quit being so dramatic.
3
Ah, so this is how freedom of speech dies. With thunderous applause and cries of "it's okay when mega-corporations do it."
America's soul is decaying at a rapid pace.
4
@Mike H. Indeed. Or, to be even more specific, "It's ok when the mega-corporations run by billionaires who think just like me do it."
If Facebook and Twitter were to be acquired by the Murdoch and Koch families respectively, I strongly suspect that the thunderous applause would magically cease, and that people would become far less sanguine about the fact that these are simply private companies running their business as they see fit.
Of course, we would also never really those people complain, because what they say would then be deemed to be untrue and offensive, and on that basis they would be denied a public platform.
Truth is the most important thing to humans. It renders order from chaos. It's how every advancement in technology, medicine, agriculture, etc is made. But humans love fiction, so it's especially important that when confronted with fiction, it's obvious to us that it is fiction. When fiction is presented as truth, it always causes harm. If you look back across history there are countless examples of this dynamic playing out with humans. Alex Jones is just one more example of a human passing fiction for truth. But if he gets banned from Facebook for promoting fiction as truth, why doesn't Donald Trump get banned from Twitter?
3
If Fox News can cater to pro-Trump voices, and NY Times can cater to pro-democrat voices, Facebook and other social media companies should also be allowed to regulate the content on their platform as they see fit.
The hypothesis that social media platforms can be neutral was an attractive idea, that many hoped would succeed. This case and other similar cases are proving that hypothesis wrong.
Some may decry that Facebook's move is an attack on first amendment principles, but in reality, it's a move to promoting the First Amendment. Monopolistic companies should not control platforms for communications and ideas. It is far more healthy for debate and democracy if there were dozens of competing Facebooks, Twitters, and Instagrams, each with their own competing platforms, norms, and community standards.
The fact that Facebook is now taking an editorial stand, and rejects the premise of being the platform for everyone, will allow other companies to fill the remaining space. I look forward to the day when Facebook chooses to focus on sharing family photos and inconsequential personal minutiae, and delegates all politics and news to other services.
2
At what point does "speech" become "incitement"? And if there is such a point, then certainly Alex Jones has crossed it. As troubling as I find Mr. Jones' rhetoric, I find the fact that he has any listeners at all even more so. It's too bad that Facebook has to silence someone that society should have never listened to in the first place.
15
@Chicago Guy Substitute "Alex jones" with "Trump" and what you say is still true!
2
This is a good move by FB and not before time. My hope now is that Twitter and other social media sites will follow suit and take a close look at what is happening on their platforms. Twitter especially is tolerant of hate-filled material which is designed to inflame passions and encourage negative responses such as racism etc. not least a certain man occupying The White House whose tweets if posted by anyone else would have resulted in them being taken down!
11
This is a bad thing. We need free speech. Bad or good...it is our right as citizens to choose why to not listen to news. We cannot have news filtered. We need to teach and educate people why certain news is right or wrong. We do not need big companies filtering for us.
2
Okay, you support free speech, without reservation. So if thousands of people were to go online and encourage thousands more to show up at your house and accuse you of staging the murder of your grade-school child, you'd be okay with that. Well, I applaud your principles, but I think the experience would change your mind.
9
The families of the children and teachers murdered at Sandy Hook have gone through and continue to go through hell. How can they even try to move forward with their lives when these crackpots are threatening them, saying it didn’t happen, that it was an elaborate government hoax? This is not freedom of speech, it is harrassment and mental torture of parents and families who have already endured unimaginable horrors.
There is something terribly wrong with Alex Jones and followers — psychiatric evaluations would be a good first step.
7
If conservatives and other extremists are upset because they think that liberal big tech companies are discriminating against them, there’s a very simple free-market solution I know they’ll get behind - bigly.
In the spirit of self-reliance and entrepreneurship that made this country great, let the banned folks build their own big tech companies that will welcome the likes of Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, and Milo Yiannopoulos. If they aren’t willing to make that effort, or if they try and fail, that will be strong evidence that they’re not worthy of a platform for their ideas and beliefs.
Go for it, folks, or stop whining about how unfairly you’re being treated.
19
Even though the banned individuals are all repulsive, I am troubled that Facebook had to take this step--but I understand it.
Metaphorically speaking, it's as if all of these individuals, arm-in-arm, walked into a crowded theatre, and, in unison, screamed "FIRE".
5
There's a deep, underlying issue here, that of education.
If people were taught to think rationally, would they run to hate-groups?
Now, to revise and amend, substantially improve public education policy ...
man, that's a "major ask"! (as they say in Australia).
Does anyone have any evidence that the current US of A is up to the task?
I, unfortunately, doubt that it is, there are too many other i$$ues on the table.
So the US, "beacon to the downtrodden of the world", finds whatever beacon it may have claimed extinguished, for all to see.
3
I wonder about people who give away every detail of their lives to a company which only exists to gather and sell your data to anybody willing to pay for it. Why on earth would anyone willingly do that? I guess the allure of believing people actually care about your life when in fact the world is mostly indifferent trumps rationality.
8
I’m happy with the conservatives starting their own technology companies. They just don’t seem to be all that interested in doing all that hard work.
15
They’re much better at complaining about how horribly unfair life is for conservatives. That’s about the only thing they’re good at—other than winning elections with fewer votes and never winning majority approval.
4
As a private business, Facebook and YouTube and all the other social networks have the right to choose who can use their services. That said, because Facebook is almost a monopoly, perhaps they should not be treated the way we treat an ordinary private enterprise. Perhaps they should be forced to conform to the law instead of their own whims.
That is where I feel that people commenting here are way, way off. You all keep saying that "hate speech" must be banned. But it shouldn't be. Actual incitement to violence is one thing -- actually saying, go out and murder people of this that or the other group is illegal. Saying that you don't like a particular group and even disparaging a particular group may be abhorrent but it's not illegal.
Once we start to ban some people based on the fact that they hate someone else, who gets to decide what's kosher and what's not? It's a slippery slope which leads us to an Orwellian world.
4
It’s fun to watch the Ayn Rand types try to justify forcing private companies to be their bullhorns, and flirt with the communism they claim to despise.
2
Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the finest mind ever to spring from this country, said “For we may tolerate any error, as long as reason is left free to combat it.”
I generally agree with the Sage of Monticello, but he was a genius of a different age, when reason (and education, and logic, and critical thinking) were valued. In the age of Trump in the Oval Office, that is sadly no longer the case in America.
I doubt that Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, et al. foresaw a time when someone such as Alex Jones would be taken seriously by more than a handful of terribly deranged, misguided, and ignorant citizens.
2
The difference is the Internet bans nothing.
The difference between a Facebook page and the ‘net in general is the difference between “My living room” and “Speakers’ Corner”.
I own or rent my living room and can decide who I invite in - if I don’t like you, I can toss you from my home.
Anybody has equal access at London’s Speakers’ Corner, the place where Mark Knoffler wrote “Two men say they’re Jesus/One of them must be wrong!”
Any number of Saviors can set themselves up on the Internet with ‘Web pages galore.
But I’ll decide if any get to preach in my living room, or, given Facebook is a for-big-profits business, who can from inside my shop.
It’s also easier to determine quality and signal-to-noise ratio at a single party’s web site, or the almost dead Special Interest Group mailing system called Usenet - all Internet Service Providers to your home used to include access to Usenet (with groups from rec.hobby.quilting to alt.alt.alt.alt.popsiclesticks (and how to use one to trigger the end of a cat’s heat cycle with one - look it up, don’t ask me).)
Facebook and Google etc. put this great plain text system effectively out of business, because it took up bandwidth to provide access to 5,000 SIGs to users. It’s still available for between $10-$15/month from added service providers - no advertising - and a chance to discuss anything, not just 1,500 chrs. if the Times considers your note important.
Incidentally, it’s where the expression alt.right came from.
Good job Facebook , Alex Jones is a dangerous demagogue. The only question I have is , why did it take so long to ban him ?
17
What if Wikipedia were to spread disinformation? It would lose its prestige and authenticity. It aims to provide factual background and other accurate information and depends on subscriber donations.
The word 'social' as in 'social media,' means that FB and T and similar outlets are entertainment went awry and the act of sharing weaponized. Divisive political messaging and other inaccuracies co-opt the sharing of family photos because the former purchased advertising. Memories are short if the younger generation forgets several millions of Americans and Europeans who lost their lives to Nazi murderers and soldiers. Some countries now outlaw propaganda from the latter.
For FB, it's a matter of greed for money without a conscience versus, for Wikipedia, virtue for dispassionate knowledge about everything there is.
In other words, Facebook censors the speech of those with whom it disagrees. You don't object because you hate Alex Jones or hate his message. But all of our speech is next. The public square is being usurped, controlled, contrived and coopted by profit driven corporations. What an absolutely horrifying reality.
11
That is nonsense. Truly. There are plenty of very conservative opinion platforms available via FB. None of them are banned or will be banned simply because they adhere to basic human behavior. Alex Jones does not. FB has every right to block him. It took years too long.
There is a difference between voicing your opinion and starting fires with proven lies. The latter are not protected by freedom of speech. As they shouldn't be. They cause suffering of innocent people (case in point the parents of Sandy Hook). Free speech ends were individual freedoms start suffering.
3
Anybody still using Facebook at this point needs to move on already.
Oh I’m sure Alex Jones will find a platform. Don’t worry.
Yeah, finally we've got our corporate big-daddy p/c social media censor to protect all our sensitive ears from all that vile, hate-filled garbage spewed by ... well, by human beings with an incredibly large and committed fan base.
But, I guess, rather than dealing with them on the level of reason and argument we should just ban them to the sound-proof basement.
Good luck with that as all it's going to do is magnify by multiples their message but this time in the "dark" web where all us well-meaning but oh-so-sensitive do-gooders will have much less say.
Sad to say, we're all ... well, since I don't want to be politically incorrect by using a derisive adjective to describe what we are and, thereby , be censored by the NY Times, I'll leave what we are as we applaud this censorship to your imagination.
4
Reason and argument? That is where you lose. There is no reason and argument to debate. I have tried. Multiple times. It is like talking with a wall.
5
But ALEX JONES HS HIS OWN WEB PAGE - so do I, under my true name.
Anybody can have a web page, podcasts, mailing lists, attract advertisers, with very little effort and for very little outlay.
Jones makes a fortune - so people who wish to read or hear him will just have to google his address and look up his spot on the open Internet.
Facebook is a private service provider and can decide who to allow to use its platform.
Nobody complains that Jones doesn’t freely open his platform to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton!
(And I find the nan destructive to our society, his content contemptible - I’ll fight for his right to continue to spew forth on his own registered web site.
I won’t allow him to use MY site. Neither will Facebook.
In this case, freedom of the web belongs to those able to spend a few dollars a year to register a domain and learn how to write HTML code or use an easy editing system.
5
“...Rather than dealing with them on the level of reason and argument...”
You have got to be kidding. Have you seen any evidence whatsoever that reason and argument work with these people? Have you ever seen Trump, his appointees, or his supporters yield to superior reasoning, logic, or argument? The answer is no, because they lack both reason and logic, and their concept of argument is repeating the first thing they said over and over until everyone gets tired and goes home.
Using reason and argument on Alex Jones and his ilk is bringing a feather to a gunfight.
4
It is time to ban Trump from Twitter. Spreading hate, falsehood, and bullying are against the policies of FB, Instagram, and YouTube. Trump repeadely violates these policies.
21
It's about time. Facebook and other social media companies should use algorithms to rate organizations based on their credibility. If an organization tends to make claims that are unsubstantiated by credible sources (e.g., the Republican Party) it should be labeled as a low-credibility source.
Facebook can interface with various fact-checking organizations to help label political organizations and individuals accordingly.
For example, after 9,000+ lies President Trump should have among the lowest credibility scores and be labeled as such on all social media that shares his content.
12
Along with credibility ratings, users should have the ability to filter out those with low credibility scores.
4
The thing I find so pathetic is that people believe these hustlers.
16
OMG. Just delete your account. Be a patriot. Stop being a victim.
5
In the 70’s, the Nazis applied for a permit to march in predominantly - Jewish Skokie, Illinois.
Mainstream response, 1970’s: “Outrageous! Ban them!”
Liberal response, 1970’s: “Let them march. Their ideals will be exposed as so atrocious that no one will dare follow. That’s what freedom of speech is all about.”
Liberal response to the equivalent, 2019: “Outrageous! Ban them!”
9
Very good and accurate assessment. Supporters of fights for social justice should take note. Censorship only weakens the fight against rightists.
7
The problem is that millions of people have shown themselves willing to follow these new atrocious ideas. It isn't 1970 anymore and critical thinking has gone down the drain.
12
@Mark
Facebook is a private corporation, not the public streets of Skokie.
16
So on Facebook you will never no longer allow comments calling Trump and his supporters mentally ill, fascists, Nazi's, ignorant, white, Christians planning a coupe against the New World order. Nor will anyone question our involvement in Syria, our war plans against Iran, question the Israeli lobby, the overthrow of Venezuela's government, the brainwashing, addiction and manipulation on social media to get us to buy merchandise and vote for whomever their the latest poll says to vote for.
I say we're in good hands.
9
From the photo, it looks like Alex Jones needs to spend more time at the gym than at any media platform. His getting acquainted with a plant-based diet might also help.
Unless he’a like Trump who has no close friends to tell him how obese he is, in that case, onwards with the burger and ice cream.
3
When the government takes over Facebook then feel free to complain about censorship. Until then, shut up and start your own right wing version and see how that goes. Sort of like The Blaze TV—with Glenn what’s his name? That’s gone over so well.
15
Censorship is far more dangerous than free speech. Hateful ideas need to be put in the open, where we can see them and shed light on their darkness publicly. Truly hateful ideas should lose any reasonable debate. Censorship ensures we will only hear about them after a highly destructive event.
Facebook would do well to let people self-sensor by grading material and allowing users to select the filters they wish to apply. If you don’t want to see violence, you won’t. But concentrating the judgment of what cannot be seen is dangerous at best and more likely evil.
11
@chris Hynes
You can see anything you want. It’s all still out there on the web. No one has to publish Woody Allen’s memoirs, and Facebook doesn’t have to make it easy for malicious haters to spread lies and harm others. I think Facebook has the responsibility not to permit this, actually.
13
Already the headlines if this article are misleading:
This has nothing to do with being conservative!
I consider myself conservative, but I don’t care for hate-mongers, whatever mantle they cloak themselves in.
And these people are not conservatives.
8
Nobody is blocking his freedom of speech. There are many street corners in America he is free to stand on a soapbox and spew his delusions.
15
You ignore the reality that FB and social media in general is the modern equivalent of the street corner, and so much more. Regulation is just around the corner. Wait and watch.
4
Facebook is not censoring "right wing" opinions. They are censoring people and organizations who committ outrageous distortions of the truth and spread hate. The fact that right wing supporters glom onto these sentiments is at the root of what is wrong with that branch of Western culture.
16
Meanwhile, late breaking news: Facebook has been slammed for banning an Australian ad that aims to boost breast cancer awareness.
Why? Breaches its rules on nudity!
Go figure.
1
FB represents a big fail in terms of human decency (and all those shares of inspirational quotations don't right the ship), but it's also really stupid to think that broadcasting impulsive, reactive posts/ideas would ever be a good thing. (Honestly, if you want a conversation wherein you can share your private thoughts, go out in a field somewhere -- and hope for the best). If there were ever such a thing as a collective human harmonic, it has been too loud and too damaged for far too long. It's kind of nice to imagine a quieter universe, with a little bit of time to calm down and get away from the torrent of angry voices. All that hateful cacophony -- good riddance to it all.
3
The man is completely unhinged. So are the people who follow him.
7
This is a deadly attack on freedom of speech and association. I detest and oppose all those who have been banned. However, I have the confidence to argue and oppose not depend on police and censorship. This will not eliminate these reprehensible ideas. Instead it will weaken the ability and duty to argue against such ideas. Inevitably such censorship powers will be used mainly to supress ideas opposed to the status quo. Everything from the Bill of Rights, to the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam Anti-war Movement, were all movements of opposition and faced severe attacks and censorship by government and so-called private business. It is very noteworthy that Liberals today are the main force demanding censorship. This is a historic abandonment of the nominally free speech position exercised in the past. Belief that right-wing ideas can simply be policed away is a mortal trap. It is akin to those in Germany who when faced with fascists called the police for help, only to learn that the 'police' were the fascists. We must have confidence in ourselves and our ability to debate, and the need for precious space to debate even the most foul of enemies.
4
What about private businesses not being forced to disseminate your views constitutes an attack on the first amendment? I really think a lot of people don't understand what freedom of speech actually is.
12
Sometimes powerful corporations actually do the right thing. We need to rid the world of people like Alex Jones, we need to stop giving them as much attention as we have given them... they are parasites who thrive and survive on attention and who exist because of media exposure. The best punishment they could receive is to be completely ignored and ridiculed whenever they are cited ...
4
Be very careful what you wish for. If FB can ban Alex Jones and others whose speech it unilaterally deems inappropriate, it can certainly ban you.
5
@Mark
You do know that Alex Jones has his own internet site?
You, I and anyone else are free to start their own sites and podcasts to express what ever they please. The internet is vast.
1
“Inappropriate”. Yeah. Threatening the lives of parents who lost their children in a massacre in their first grade classroom is simply “inappropriate “.
So when does Facebook ban the fringe figure in the White House?
5
I am somewhat concerned that we are putting Facebook and Twitter in charge of the 1st Amendment. I put shared a NY Times article on Facebook that had a picture of a starving Yemeni in a diaper. Facebook took down because they said it violated their policy on nudity.
5
Which party is systematically attempting to end debate in the US?
The Democrat tactic of defining ideas they don't like as hate speech to prevent themselves having to hear an opposing opinion that might send their weak minds into cognitive dissonance is a fascist strategy.
5
Which party is ending debate? Well, the victims of right-wing terrorists who attack synagogues, churches, mosques, grocery stores, yoga studios and schools certainly have been silenced. The right’s response when they don’t agree with you is not to try to win an argument, it’s to fire an AR-15 at you in your house of worship, as they’ve proven repeatedly.
5
@Kip
Yes.
We must protect our yoga studios.
Threatening the lives of parents who lost their children in a massacre in their first grade classroom is not an idea.
1
FB has just realized the stock market can only go up, regardless of what they do.
1
There is often a fine line between between free speech and lunacy. An example is a large and influential group -- called "anti-vaxxers'" -- who trumpet a ridiculous claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
I would like for Facebook to oust the anti-vaxxers, who are intent on gathering more and more gullible and fearful followers. they are a strong and convincing group. Because of them, we now have the largest number of measles outbreaks since 1994, which is creating a huge public health nightmare.
Right now, a cruise ship in the Pacific is quarantined because a passenger came down with measles, potentially exposing hundreds of other people. That passenger was most certainly not vaccinated because of the lunatic (and wholly unproven) theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
I have a son with autism and I have read the literature showing no connection between autism and vaccines. The truth is impossible to dismiss. The fanatical anti-vaxxers refuse to even consider the evidence. They are doing great harm.
I wish the anti-vaxxers would find some other truly urgent and appropriate public health issue to fight, such as opioid abuse, poverty, or mental health.
11
@Theresa I have read that both the Anti Vaccine and anti GMO movement are funded by Russia,yet nearly all children in Russia are vaccinated. In the Soviet Empire, Lysenko's insane anti genetic ideas led tho the extermination of a generation of Soviet biologists. If Western children are unvaccinated, a Russian bio warfare attack would be far more deadly. You can do a search on these facts.
Facebook and Instagram banned extremists (both on the left and the right) not because it was the right thing, but rather because they were legally exposed due to changes in the laws of Canada and New Zealand. They did it because of fiscal risks and liabilities that outweighed the profits they were getting from their ad revenue. Plain and simple.
2
My view is that Facebook and other social media web sites should ban all political dialog period. Unfortunately, most people have neither the time, expertise, or the inclination to sort fact from fantasy. If it appears on screen then it must be true. Social media sites aren't news sites and the simplist solution is to ban any posting that is sociopolitical or socioeconomic in nature. if people want to Express opinions there are many venues to do so.
Facebook can easily rid itself of these controversial people. That's a given. What is much harder to get rid of is the influence of Russia's Internet Research Agency and China's Internet Network Information Center. They are embedded deep in the fabric of platforms like Facebook. If you follow the right articles you'll see them right here in the NYT comments. They are out in full force right now in the spreading of disinformation memes and comments regarding this topic. Token bans on fringe hucksters won't fix the damage being done by these agencies. How is Facebook going to fix this problem?
1
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Alex Jones, alone, with no one listening. The silence is golden.
7
nice ban
need to ban more
7
Is Facebook private or public?
If you believe in capitalism, then it's private and they can do what they like with their private company's property.
So, if you don't like the company take your business elsewhere.
Simple
14
Which is worse: allowing every Facebook user, no matter how despicable, to have an equal voice, or allowing Zuckerberg ultimate control over our exposure to the world?
5
Facebook is not the arbiter of all communication. I haven't logged into my account in 8 years or so and I certainly don't feel disenfranchised.
5
@Fern
Fern, Fern, pull yourself together. If you rely on FB for your "exposure to the world," you aren't living your life. Available to you are the NYT, WaPo,and all the newspapers and television news in the world, and books, and libraries, and nature walks, and visits to foreign countries, universities, and, yes, even conversations with people in which ideas are expressed and new information learned. Have you listened to Beethoven or Motown? Seen an original Rembrandt? Learned to surf in Maui?
Walk away from FB and enjoy an authentic life.
3
@Fern pamela, I'm not even registered on Facebook. There are people who live in the black hole of Facebook and rely on it for all of their news, and I do think that whatever venue people rely on for information about the world is more useful if they are able to see what people like, for example, Alex Jones are all about. If you don't know how ugly they are, it's a lot harder to understand why some people are upset by them, or why others ignorantly worship them. Keeping people in the dark is never a good solution.
1
i'm glad that these people removed from Facebook. I hope we can move on to remove the hate speakers on night time fox news - sean laura and lou
2
Dangerous to silence and be intolerant of those said to be intolerant.
The antidote to perceived bad speech is more speech, corrective speech, not repression.
Speech is a healthy valve that lessons violence.
8
Dangerous to silence and be intolerant of those said to intolerant.
The antidote to perceived bad speech is more speech, corrective speech, not repression.
Speech is a healthy valve that lessons violence.
3
Facebook has taken a hit from progressive people like myself who have left the platform. They know my politics, I am sure. But this move won’t make me return.
3
Well let’s read together, the short answer is yes.
Regarding extremism. My geography teacher taught dependency theory (Marxism) in an English state school. I flirted with anarchism. I voted for Tony Blair. I worked in media and I was involved in mental health activism.
I feel a bit like a South American dictator because although my sympathies are left wing I sometimes feel that social work, mental health activism, yoga, zen, permaculture, home brewing, needle craft, urban design, the acting profession, the media all these ideas from a variety of philosophical, political and spiritual writers all boils down to Marxism. As my grandmother says “Lovies and lefties”.
I hesitate to defend right wing extremists. I just see it as lack of intelligence and narrow mindedness, maybe verging into mental illness.
I really don’t know what is extremism, what is fake news and what is hate speech. I can see inciting violence as wrong but in my own life I have held a Kama sutra of political positions.
It feels like people want to clamp down on so called extremism and prop up business as usual when the so called sensible business as usual also have blood on their hands (see Noam Chomsky’s criticisms of NYT).
I don’t know what is extremism, does Facebook? Developers with no sense of history?
As Joyce said “history is a nightmare from which we are struggling to awake”.
4
About time. After reading multiple articles about Alex Jones and Facebook I closed my account and have no intent of going back. I find it completely disgusting that Facebook would give someone like Jones an audience. Sooner or later he will meet his demise.
3
Thought bubble: "Be careful of what we wish for... it just might come true."
I agree it is the right move now but this just might open the door to something else in the near future...
1
Who is Facebook to decide? No one should be banned for expressing a nonviolent opinion. Now banning those associated with ISIS makes total sense.
Jones is a mere right wing commentator, please don’t shoot the messenger.
6
Facebook, doesn’t have to provide anyone a platform, like any business, they have the right to refuse their services to anyone for any reason. It’s not a public platform per se’.
9
'Criminals 'a la Alex Jones' have no business perverting minds of susceptible people; they must be banned, if not jailed, from influencing others by spreading hate, debunked falsehoods and conspiracy theories
2
@manfred marcus
After hearing Alex Jones I've come to the conclusion we are under siege from not only Monsanto, Nytimes, deep state, CIA, KGB, the oil companies, Elon Musk, Nuns, the Illuminati, Free Masons, BIG Pharma, Goldman Sachs and everything else under the sun but also Lizard People From the Fifth Dimension in Close Orbit to the Sun. LPFFDCOS are the true enemy.
Or it's just the Republicans?
2
Facebook is the cause of the great divide between left and right. Allowing garbage content that incites hate and distrust of the other side that constantly bombards people in their own echo chambers led to where we are today.
2
I think it’s problematic that all of the New York Times critics picks comments are so for this censorship. Some of them even say they’re not familiar with the people kicked off.
Alex Jones is a very complicated subject. Let’s be clear though. The number one podcast online is joe Rogan and his number one rated episode is with alex Jones. It’s incredibly entertaining, incredibly funny and also I think shows a side of him that not everyone knows. He’s out of his mind. He says awful stuff, but he also says some very cogent and interesting stuff. The media greatly exaggerated his position on crisis actors. It’s easy to make something someone says once or twice online last forever in the press.
Censorship is dangerous especially when it pushes people to the darkest trenches of the internet, past 4 Chan and towards 8chan.
Be careful. Censorship does not cure. It creates extremity vacuums in less policed places.
5
Facebook is primarily a communications platform. Would it be okay if the phone company censors words people say that violate its belief system? The phone company is, after all a privately owned network. Doesn’t it have a responsibility to uphold American values, such as patriotism and marriage, and military discipline? Why or why not?
8
Speech is free, but that doesn’t mean that Facebook or any other platform of internet provider will or even should allow hate speech to occur. If the same verbiage was used, and incited a riot, you’d go to jail for inciting a riot. Why the right thinks that Facebook and other platforms owe them the right to spew their particular brand of hate.
5
I’m unclear how patriotism, marriage, military and discipline relate to telling a parent that their child’s remains need to be exhumed so Alex can prove his theory to his paying subscribers that a child’s murder was a hoax perpetrated by the Obama administration.
Or, how said subscribers are then allowed to camp out on dead children’s parents’ lawns and harass them via FB and phone and in person because Alex Jones has been given an unrestricted platform to amass the ill-informed and hateful, incurious sufferers of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Alex Jones absolutely does not
represent any American value.
That’s why.
7
@Lissa Andy you trust some corporate shills at Facebook to decide that for you? Let me be clear, I absolutely don’t trust them; whatever your feed shows can easily adhere to their vision. Any political side can play that game. Censor the opposition. Text messages can be censored too. The flaw in this thinking is placing trust in a committee of moral or political arbiters. This was why interfering in mail or telephone was considered evil in the past. Rest assured, there are people who would delete your words and thoughts too. This is a faulty method regardless of your politics. Obviously we can’t openly incite violence, but that doesn’t mean we subjugate all speech to corporate arbiters.
3
It's a step in the right direction. Mr Zuckerberg's invention, not anything like he perhaps imagined (if he ever had put any thought into it way back then) turned out to be an amplifier and concentrator of hate speech, let alone a major destabilizer of democracies. How ironic that he should face himself with the task of reinventing online censorship. But that's okay, because the notion that online is like a soapbox is basically wrong. The soapbox never intended you to be heard loud and clear on the other side of the planet. In fact, left unchecked, any character with an evil intent and some basic knowledge can now influence nations and the course of history. Thanks Mr. Zuckerberg; hopefully you can fix it before it's too late...
3
People should never be banned from expressing their non-violent opinions. This is just the start.
5
@Bruce Stasiuk -- Jones has not been banned from expressing anything. He has only been denied access to a particular platform. He remains free to publish his speech to any and all who wish to visit his website -- and indeed he continues to do so.
12
@mark kessinger but the issue is that he just gets pushed to more extreme platforms, where there is even less criticism or pushback to extreme ideas. The New Zealand shooter was all over 8chan. When people are afraid to express their views in public it’s impossible to change their views so they go to safe extreme places like 8chan, where every shooting is a meme or a game and people say things to the shooters as they’re live streaming like “get a high score”.
The idea that this with help is just not logical. There are too many people that love alex Jones. Millions and millions. So taking him out of the mainstream will only take all those people out too, where there is much more of a chance that they are turned on to more and more myopic and extreme views of the world.
1
So, I guess it took a $5 billion fine for Zuckerberg to finally do this?
3
Facebook should be banned.
4
FINALLY!
4
For the good of democracy and integrity of the social fabric, how about Facebook deletes itself? Maybe then we could get back to fostering community and connection minus all the vitriol and poison.
The surest way to remove all offensive material from Facebook is by closing down Facebook.
5
Farrakhan has never fit this description; “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology,”
1
Neither does it fit for Alex Jones. Should he be held responsible for his fan base???
2
Oh yes Farrakhan has, he’s preached violence against whites, oh yes, he too needs to find another way to distribute hate...He’s no better than Jones, or white nationalists.
4
Well that depends, for a definitive answer, ask David Duke, he was the grand lizzard, I mean wizard. He was running the KKK when they were sued, and lost, and had to sell assets to, to pay for damages......so, it’s possible,
2
If hobby lobby and others can deny services to the public on religious grounds, then they cannot complain that other public companies impose their moral and ethical rules on people using their proprietary services.
It’s about time they shut these foul mouthed people off.
9
What is so conservative about harassing bereaved parents?
11
That’s what I have always wanted to know, I’m glad that Alex Jones is being sued, and had been banned, he probably doesn’t believe any of his own trope, when he signed off every day, he probably went and asked how many online orders for his vitamins were taken, after all, he sold vitamins during his “so called shows”.
3
Long time follower of Facebook - in the news. Never a member. It's one thing I have in common with my kids. To them, Facebook is for losers and trolls (same with Twitter). To me, Facebook is for people that agree to have their lives sold to companies (and countries) and then be fed targeted garbage in exchange for letting them post pictures of their kids and pets. Seriously people - you are the product to Facebook.
2
By the way, my kids do not have a Facebook account, I monitor their phones, I’ve taught them that corporations do not have their best interests in mind. Apps must be preapproved by me, my kids phones are disabled at dinner, for me I’ve found that raising kids, well since I was once a one, I have a pretty good idea how kids are and how they will try and manipulate you. But I’ve found that if you talk to your kids and explain the hazards and pitfalls of the digital age, they will be better prepared to deal with it.
1
Nothing is free even fertiliser its a business they can limit anyone
I am often puzzled as to why the far right is always targeted in these discussions. I am definitely no fan of the far right but rightists seem to be unfairly targeted.
The far left can be just as reprehensible as the far right. In the 20th century more people died at the hands of Mao and Stalin than Hitler.
Here in England you could walk down the street wearing USSR insignia and no one would bat an eyelid but wear a swastika and the police would probably pull you over.
I don’t understand why the left get an easier rap. It makes me worry that millennials see socialism as a cozy option. When in fact millions died under socialist experiments.
I feel like people see socialism as more benign because it at least starts with good intentions whereas the right admits it is about hate. Maybe the right is more honest?
7
But that because rarely do you have someone from the left spewing lies about Sandy Hook.
3
Farrakhan isn't exactly "far right." I wouldn't put him anywhere on the normal political spectrum, actually.
2
Are you ready to give up your socialized health care?
It is about time, Facebook.
Twitter— we are waiting for u to do so.
3
it's against my Facebook religion to have to listen to these cruel, lying reprobates who incite violence. If the guvmint can't make you bake a cake for a gay wedding, or is letting you off your obligation to provide needed health services for people seeking legally-protected care, why can't my religion ban your hate from my congregation?
2
They are not "conservatives" they are jerks and trolls. In the same way that if acting like a jerk at someone's party gets you tossed out the door. FB simply cleared out the garbage. Act like a decent human and your political beliefs are meaningless. Act like a jerk and you're out. Pretty simple even for the modern day far right...
4
YouTube needs to do the same thing. Censorship only pertains to restraints on free speech by the government or its agencies, so it does not apply in these cases. These are privately-owned channels of communication, and those who abuse them should be barred from using them - different from someone being banned from any other place of business for failing to respect the rules.
6
If you look at every established medium, TV, radio, print, that is available to the public, there are controls and restrictions. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech and it is about time that electronic and social media available to the public should have controls and restrictions. It should be implemented uniformly and fairly, and no individual should be above those restrictions and controls.
6
I have these banned gentlemen figures out how to get the majority of Americans riled up and fighting corporations and the wealthy to take back their democracy? Do we want Facebook to be able to ban the person that suddenly is having some success in rallying people to gun control?
1
Yes. If Facebook wants they can go back and say their platform can be used only to share photos with family members. FB can also close shop tomorrow and delete everything.
2
These individuals had a free platform through Facebook/Instagram to spew their hatred. They need to pay if they want to broadcast their terrible rhetoric. I believe this move by Facebook will curtail their reach. The world needs compassion and love, and not people who fuel on discord and hatred.
3
@Beatriz -- Unfortunately, this move is unlikely to curtail their reach. Users are still free to share the vile content of the websites these guys operate -- and to do so even on Facebook.
Facebook making another statement that will never be implemented. Just Another bit of white noise to make it sound as if they care. They care because they are constantly in the news because as they can’t monitof there own platform and they continues to sell off the privacy of people who are foolish enough to be on this platform.
If this was a hospital where each department was unaccredited I can’t believe that the public would continue to trust an institution that could care less about your life but care a great deal about making money off of you.
What we now have is a group of people that you have never met and probably never will meet determining what is best for you to read. Are their decisions based upon what you consider might offend your delicate sensibilities or upon what offends their agenda for control of your thoughts ?
The Ministry of Truth is both real and active. Be afraid.
5
I’m more afraid of the zealots spewing their hate than a private company deciding they will no longer participate the decimation of their garbage.
4
This is what’s called False equivalence.
Fact-based journalism is essential to a healthy democracy because it provides citizens with objective information on issues of public concern. Infowars does the opposite — poisoning our civic discourse by distorting the truth and blurring the line between news and propaganda.
What I’m “truly afraid” of is comparable to what’s happening today with the measles outbreak- infecting hundreds-because of some wacko conspiracy theory - this nonsensical rhetoric is a disease that spreads. I say eradicate it.
1
People who are willing to surrender their own right to determine what might or might not be garbage are exactly the type that they are looking for.
1
Of course I'm pleased about this move by Facebook, but I'm afraid that it's also a case of too little, too late.
4
Last December, Tumblr banned the posting of certain types of adult messages. It is their platform, and it is their right to control its content, despite the uproar that ensued.
The same applies to Facebook. No one has the right to have a Facebook account or post what they want to. It is up to Facebook and Facebook alone to make those rules, and violators will be dealt with by Facebook alone.
There are no free speech rights involved here. None. So get over it.
All I can say about Facebook in the current regard is, it's about time.
10
I'll be impressed with Facebook's social conscience and moderating when I read a news item that lists all the left wing extremists they have removed from their site. Until then they are just another member of the MSM that is a one sided political entity with an agenda.
5
Care to list some of the people you have in mind? Who are they?
5
Quite the list. These are all hate groups which make up facts and stories like the ALEX Jones? Good luck making that case to anybody outside the Trump Putin orbit.
@TK
“left wing extremists”?!?!
A Muslim-American and six environmental activist organizations? Do you even know what “left-wing” means?
1
suspect that King George would have similarly banned the colonists' ideas back in the day. trying to silence words of dissent only results in other more dramatic actions in human history. Please clarify the core difference between modern social media and Alex Graham Bell's invention. Why is it not a utility? Education has not taught the young to argue effectively, to deal with "less preferred" facts, history, and reality. This has already led to violence, a la "antifa" et al.
6
@Mat: The difference between Facebook and phone? It's an interesting question, but maybe not unanswerable. Social media messages are posted and stay there, available to millions for a long time, while a phone call is ephemeral and essentially impossible to monitor and fact check. So controlling social media is a plausible project, in a way that controlling personal conversations isn't. Control over the content of recorded robo-calls would arguably be legitimate in a way we wouldn't accept in relation to personal conversations. There is certainly a crucial principle of free speech, and yet we prosecute false advertising, libel and some forms of threatening and harassment.
And, the social media are all private corporations: if I have a bulletin board in my store, I get to take down your flyer if it doesn't comply with my standards. You could make a case that the social media should be public utilities, but at present they aren't.
I disagree about the kids today being unable to argue effectively: many of them seem pretty astute, possibly more so than was common in the past, which was nothing to brag about, if you look back through history.
9
@Mat
Dissent? You cannot be claiming this lunatic who spreads hateful lies to make money off of fools is just dissenting?
10
They stopped teaching critical thinking a long time ago. Consider the source.
2
Next up: banning supporters of boycotting Israel, and not a moment too soon.
FB is a private party, not a utility. Play nice or get lost.
5
Terrible decision - freedom of speech violated once again and the professional fake outrage brigade is gleefully rubbing their hands. Let us meet these people with facts not bans!
14
@Frank Skinner disagree; the next big move would be to ban Trump from Twitter, a big step in eliminating fake news.
17
@Frank Skinner
Freedom of speech does not preclude a private company to establish rules on how to use their product. This, together with allowing FB and its affiliates to use your private data for their business is clearly written in small print of the User Agreement that you ticked the 'I Agree' box before joining FB. Congratulations!
9
The algorithms of these companies are designed to keep you engaged and they do so by reinforcing the information you appear to want to see on their platform. So the problem isn’t that people can read Alex Jones on Facebook. The problem is that, with time and consenting clicks, they are eventually ONLY reading a feed of Alex Joneses. The social media platforms know this because it is how they designed their business models.
Youtube hasn’t gotten enough negative press for doing that kind of thing yet.
11
It amazes me that so many people posting here think that if a privately owned entity bans spoken or written communication based on its content, that act somehow lies outside the definition of censorship. Our constitution does not offer refuge from private censorship,it's true, but that doesn't remove such action from the realm of the definition. I censored my own kids all the time when they were growing up, and just because I'm not a government agent doesn't mean that's not what I was doing.
Speech isn't really free if ANY party--public or private-- gets to squash it. We can have disagreements about the merits and detriments of private-party censorship in the context of our legal system and our culture, and that's all good. When one party denies another party the ability to spread his ideas through spoken or written word, they're censoring them. It's legal to do so; that doesn't necessarily make it desirable, and the fact that it's legal certainly doesn't change the fact that that's what it is.
6
@Jim -- It isn't that it lies outside the definition of censorship. It's that censorship by private entities on platforms they own and operate is absolutely permissible under the law.
@Mark Kessinger Of course it is--I expressly acknowledged that already. But that's NOT what many are purporting--they are saying flat-out that if a private party does it, it doesn't count as censorship.
Private-party censorship is like, in my mind, tobacco use: not all that is legal is desirable.
1
@Jim
That’s just a ridiculous quibble. No one has any responsibility to provide a platform for anyone else. That’s freedom too.
2
The best part is knowing the gatekeepers are all so-called ‘progressives’ and that leftist hate speech will not be banned.
3
Even Alex Jones agrees that he is nuts - we need to keep these pied pipers of the mentally unstable and violent off the carnival barker stand that is social media
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjfktmHlf7hAhUfJzQIHa80BQIQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-jones-blames-conspiracy-claims-on-psychosis&psig=AOvVaw1E7AsAV4l5fWj9AejC0507&ust=1556931798751497
People need to respect the President Yes Trump We need him . He will be here awhile watch and learn .
2
Respect the Presidency yes. The man no. I can’t respect a man that put oil executives in charge of he environment.
4
@Kipp
Hilarious. Trump, a man who respects nothing and no one. He deserves only contempt.
1
@Kipp We need Trump like we need Facebook. Not much.
Conservatives believed in strong law enforcement and a robust foreign policy. Alex Jones has a whole portion of his website dedicated to the so-called police state we live in. And he's an isolationist. So as on old Reagan Republican conservative, I don't consider him one. Frankly, he's just a kook.
1
And what took you so long FB? Can you answer this question truthfully?
2
None of this is true.
Facebook is actually using this as a diversion while it moves forward with a sinister plot to inject LSD into our eyes via its website.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me so.
6
@Discerning yes! Doubtless using the vaporizer disguised as a camera!
Banning Alex Jones is a blessing, thanks. His 15 minutes of shame is so far over. He has poisoned too many minds.
2
First they can after Alex Jones...
7
@JQGALT
Nicely put.
3
@JQGALT -- A Niemoeller you certainly are not! This is not a free speech issue. Alex Jones continues to be free to spew his hateful kookiness all over the Internet. He is just not permitted to use one particular entity's platform to do it. He continues to operate his own website.
Freedom of speech does not mean and never has meant an unfettered right to way whatever you want on any platform (particularly one owned and operated by a private entity).
We all have a right to free speech, but none of us has a right to demand that any particular platform or stage make itself available to us.
Oh please. That saying is used to talk about innocents persecuted by a government. Alex Jones is no innocent and persecutes the poor families of Sandy Hook. I hope the government does come for him and his ilk someday.
So Facebook bans Alex Jones and his ilk for what? Posting ideas they detest? Repulsive as such figures' ideas might be, free speech in this country should be preserved, and Facebook, although a private entity, allows abhorrent posts to be published constantly. How is one person different from the next? It's a slippery slope. . .
5
O.K. One more time...
Free speech is about government suppression. It does not have any relationship to the actions of private entities.
These are private businesses. They can offer or ban their services as they see fit, protected groups excepted. Last I checked, right wing conspiracy nut jobs are not a protected group.
There is no, none, nada requirement that any private organization provide a platform. Period.
5
@uwteacher That's like saying any discussion of professional basketball is limited only to the NBA. You can say it as often as you like, and it's wrong every time.
One more, two more, a hundred more; it doesn't matter how many more times you say it. The issue of free speech is not limited strictly to constitutionally protected free speech, which is merely a subset.
Not all that is legal is desirable.
2
@Jim
There is no reason to expect taht any and all private platforms must or even should be open to one and all.
You are free to express your ideas. Nobody has any obligation to provide you a platform.
1
@Jim
“The issue of free speech is not limited strictly to constitutionally protected free speech.”
It doesn’t matter how many times you say that. Yes. Yes, it is.
You will see elsewhere in today’s paper that no one seems interested in publishing Woody Allen’s memoirs. His rights have not been violated. Neither have Alex Jones’s.
1
I am amazed at the promotion of cultural suicide in these comments. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Every time you deny the right of someone to be heard, you invariably deny your own right to listen. We cannot continue to let these social media conglomerates be the arbiters of what we see and hear. Yes they are private platforms but they incubate the views of billions of people and they must therefore be subject to the first amendment and the imminent lawless action test (which not many people in this comments section seem to understand
?? Look it up). We must protect these standards at all costs, especially from Zuckerberg, Dorsey et al.
These are just more casualties in the war against our culture which started with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989.
3
@Sam Bailey -- There is no such thing as a "right to be heard," because people can always choose whether they want to hear you or not. There is only a right to free speech. And neither Alex Jones nor anyone else has been denied his freedom of speech. He has only been denied the use of a particular platform as a vehicle for spreading his ideas. But he is free to go to another platform (if he can find one that will have him), or he is free to publish his speech via a website of his own -- as indeed he already does,.
@Sam Bailey
Alex Jones is still free to play the fool anywhere he wants. But nobody owes him any resources or help. That’s the issue here.
1
They forgot Representative Omar.
1
@Richard
Nobody ever fired an assault rifle in a pizza joint because of what Ms. Omar told them about the place.
1
It’s not like they blocked George Will.
2
Why do we let any non-progressive speak at all?
2
Hate speech is being encouraged by President Trump. No other president has stooped as low as he has in viciously attacking so many people and institutions. No other president has riled up his supporters to the point where they appear to be a vicious, mindless howling mob.
If anything, online media has been extremely tolerant of his behavior and coarse words and profanity. That courtesy need not be extended to hate mongers like Alex Jones.
1
Good. Nothing stopping Alex Jones from carrying a cardboard sign with his views up and down the streets of Sandy Hook. I’m sure he’ll be welcome open arms.
3
Alex Jones, who spews thoroughly demented ideas, has profited from his vile distortions and despicable lies. Good riddance. He has skated along with a defense of freedom of speech for way too long. His twisting of the events and cold lack of empathy for the victims and families of, for example, Newtown and Stoneman Douglas, is stunningly amoral. May his hate filled rhetoric recede into oblivion.
4
So glad that Alex Jones no longer has platform on Facebook.
1
John 12:19 "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him."
Not even from childhood to his 85 years of age has The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan been found to be hateful in any way. Through various investigations there has not been one report of an ill-intended action by him against another human being.Bring what you have. I have witnessed a JDL / Jewish vigil at a Los Angeles University when those who were participating in the vigil were chanting ,"We want Farrakhan ! How do you want him? Dead!". I was an FOI instructed to protect them and make sure nothing happened to them while the Minister was inside speaking. I have seen a cartoon in the New York Post with a dotted line across his neck as he lay on operating table with two Jewish doctors about to cut his throat. Give the world one sentence of supposed violence in his 42 years of service since he began the rebuilding of the Nation of Islam in 1977 or before that. The real fear is the scripture I gave at the beginning of this comment. Raising BlackPeople from a dead state of life. That's not his fault. That is the Work of the Living God. There are those among your people who see Minister as the Messiah. So, we all continue to walk in scripture and watch The Time.
2
Great news!! The chickens have indeed come home to roost, eh Louis?
I think you meant Alex
Oh, no surprise here, as Zuckerberg said, Lenin's Bay Area leans heavy left, so now Facebook bans political malcontents -- enemies of the Grand Collective -- based on Neo-Marxist criteria.
We've made our chains in Silicon Valley -- with Marcuse's Berkeley not far away -- and now must wear them. So much for the public square and free speech.
Where are those masked Antifa street thugs when you need them, working for Google and Facebook?
2
What about all the people who aren't spreading hate on Facebook who've had their accounts disabled? Facebook "struggled" over their decision to ban these hateful individuals, but on Dec. 3, 2018, without warning, or a valid reason, after more than a DECADE Facebook decided I wasn't me and disabled my page! The automated response they gave was that they couldn't verify my account! I've uploaded my driver license every 30 days, because after 30 days they said it get deleted, I have written to BOTH addresses listed online as Facebook's cooperate office, I have posted on Twitter and Instagram asking that ANYONE get back to me, and NOTHING!! NOTHING has happened and nothing has been resolved. My daughter began to fear that Facebook would retaliate against her for contacting them on her page for me that I ended up creating a second page so I can take care of it on my own. I have THOUSANDS of photos on Facebook. The option to download your content doesn't work! NOTHING downloads! I did NOTHING wrong! But these HATEFUL individuals were given chance, after chance, after chance before being banned?? This is beyond disgusting! There are numerous stories like mine, and most have the same "resolution", NOTHING being done! I have no politics on my page, not nudity, no bulling, no harassment, no copyright infringement, NO RULES BROKEN! More than ten years and Facebook refuses to enable my account or respond to me other than the automated responses. It will be be FIVE MONTHS in two days!
You mean the corporate “free” service that held your THOUSANDS of pics refuses to let them go? That certainly doesn’t sound like a Facebook problem.
I object to these far-right conspiracy theorists, fascists and crackpots being referred to in the NYT as “conservatives.” They assuredly are not. The whole vocabulary used to describe political positions could do with updating.
2
I agree - very little of their rabid spewing could be defined as conservative in anyway - more like radical right
2
FB disabled my account yesterday, too, for sharing about DNC chair Tom Perez and the horrible things he allowed to go on when working in Maryland before Obama tapped him.
Nobody has the right to misuse free speech to say that I, a Jew, do not have the right to be alive.
Facebook is going to discern what is and isn't hate speech...
Yet – my phone company can't even discern what is and isn't a real call from one of my neighbors...
Or so they say...
But folks pay more than $100 monthly for dumb phone service...
Obviously run by folks who stayed around to get their MBAs from HBS...
Gotta go – incoming from what looks like the new folks moved in down the street...
"A. Jones", it says – and the same # as the people who used to live there...
My AI bot says we should make them a fruitcake, so they'll feel right at home...
Says it figured that out by looking on Facebook...
1
Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, has herself made repeated anti-Semitic comments. Shouldn't she be banned by Facebook and Instagram? These platforms only chose conservative extremists -- what about leftist ones who spout hate?
3
Very few of them have large assault weapons collections
Conservatives: that right wing cake baker should be able to refuse service to gay dudes!
Also conservatives: Facebook shouldn’t be allowed to refuse service to hate mongers and conspiracy theorists!
7
I'm not sure if banning "fear and hate" is really the way to go here.
Fear and hate are basic human emotions. Are you not allowed to hate Nazis? Are you not allowed to fear Al Qaeda with a dirty bomb? Fear and hate can be perfectly legitimate, and it doesn't make sense to police people's mental states.
Instead, Facebook should act based on: 1. Dehumanization (Farrakhan calling his enemies "vermin" and "termites") and 2. Reckless disregard for the truth (Alex Jones and blatant falsehoods).
If you don't dehumanize, or blatantly lie, you should be allowed to fear and hate all you want. It's only human.
1
Explain to me how ANTIFA United still has a page.
4
Until Twitter bans Trump for being a racist troll Silicon Valley can keep working on sending itself to another planet.
3
To you all who claim that FB is not a subject to 1st Amendment.
Yes, it's true.
Just as FB, the Brownshirts weren't a governmental agency on Kristallnacht.
They simply decided that being a Jew was a form of hate speech very offensive to the true Aryans and their lofty values. They censored the Jews all right.
2
@al
False equivalence
1
Next time you go to thank an ex military for their service. don't bother. You just banned us. Your master Corporatocracy we are bad and as such should be silenced. 5 years of my life working to defend YOU and you throw us away like yesterdays trash. Keep this garbage up and what you are doing you do to yourselves. You cannot live in a democracy without the 1st amendment.
Freedom always dies with thunderous applause, the tears come later.
2
Trump and his minions have already banished our once proud democracy to the ash heap. Thanks for nothing.
1
So, why is the NYT still free to report conspiracies? For 2 solid years all of the major main stream conspiracy news networks have put out over 500,000 conspiracies/lies about Trump/Russia and all of you who went along and cheered each new conspiracy were made to look like fools by the NYT and the others. Yet here we are, and from what I have read in these posts, you all are STILL believing every thing they report. This head line should read "Alex Jones of infowars.com used to be the king of conspiracies but since the Mueller report came out and exposed us as conspiracy kooks, the NYT is the king of conspiracies knocking Jones out of the 1st place position". Do you idiots not feel betrayed by the NYT and the other main stream conspiracy news networks? Why haven't all of the main stream conspiracy news networks been banned from public consumption? They are worse then anything Jones has done or said. What a bunch of puppets!!!
2
@allen blaine
You don’t actually believe Barr’s little fairy tale, do you? The Mueller report demonstrates that Trump is a criminal who belongs in jail.
1
Stop calling radicals “conservatives”!
Do your homework!
It is reasonable for a private company, and perfectly legal, to ban hate speech. I would argue this is long overdue. Not only is it legal for a company to ban hate speech- it is legal in Canada to do so. In Canada "hate speech" is not an acceptable part of "free speech". I believe the logic is that the right of all of us to not be threatened by hate trumps (pun intended) the rights of a few to spew hate. If anyone stops for a moment to think about this critically, you will see the wisdom in the Canadian approach. It has long baffled me that Americans reflexively accept their absolutist defense of "free speech", as if the ideas of some old white guys from ~230 years ago are somehow inviolable and still lead to the best outcomes on "free speech" today. Now that a tweet, or a facebook post, or an email can circle the globe in seconds, we need to reign in hate quite a bit more than we did at the time of this country's founding. I say Facebook made a good decision that is long overdue.
3
@CitizenJ
In Canada you can also be dragged before a government tribunal for expressing thoughts certain leftist groups object to.
It’s not as free a country as it used to be, sadly.
1
Facebook has now demonstrated that it is a publisher. And must be regulated as such. Which is good and proper. This should also mean good bye to a good chunk of its profits and market capitalization.
1
@Phil Otsuki
Oh, dear. You have the whole First Amendment question backward. Publishers can’t be “regulated.” They are free to publish or not publish anything they wish.
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press.”
1
Good for them, but it took them far too long to do this. I’m still happy that I deleted my account, though. One year off, I don’t miss it at all, never going back.
7
Wow... how brave. The platforms are in fact common carriers. The content has changed, but common carriers nonetheless. Curation is expensive and regulations are not in Silicon Valley’s lexicon... they just couldn’t help themselves.
@Mark
They faced a moral dilemma, which is always tough for a corporation (since “business ethics” really just boils down to caveat emptor), and they chose the more difficult and ethical way.
1
They can block whoever they like, there’s no constitutional right to have access to Facebook but wish they would be upfront about their politics.
5
Sounds like their politics are to not serve as a megaphone for seditionists and the violently unstable
1
I’d prefer we bar Facebook - rather than Facebook bar Alex Jones. Free speech is not the problem - Facebook is.
13
Alex Jones and his cronies are a problem - a friend of mine was in DC when I guy tried to shoot up the pizza parlor he goes to because of Alex Jones Pizzagate conspiracy nonsense
1
Facebook and Twitter are modern day public squares. Many state and municipal governments and other public entities use social media to communicate with citizens and the general public. As such they are a part of the modern fabric of society and the exclusion of individuals from them is likely unconstitutional. Liability laws can deal with speech that is slanderous such as is being done with Jones.
Liberals used to care about free speech rights and realized that they represent a fundamental difference between authoritarian regimes and democratic ones. It is a slippery slope for FB, Twitter, etc. to head in the direction of the social media platforms of China.
11
@EE -- No, that is not correct. The _Internet_ in general is the public square. Facebook and Twitter are but two private platforms that operate via the Internet. I would remind you that Alex Jones operates his very own website, where he is free to spew all the hate and other nonsense he wishes to spew, and others are free to browse (or not) as they choose. Nobody's freedom of speech has been infringed here.
53
Wrong, Facebook is a private entity not in any way, shape, or form the public square. Any government entity that uses it as its primary method of public interaction, is shirking its responsibility .
4
Couldn't say it better myself
1
This is how it begins... label someone you do not agree with a bigot, racist, far(wing), """hate speech""", get the media to go along with your narrative, and get private corporations to ban, de-platform, and scare advertisers. The Left needs to realize that they are clapping like trained seals ONLY because it is not their team being affected on this one. I bet "Progressives" would cry rivers if Facebook were banning The Young Turks, who incited a shooter to kill five policemen in Dallas.
14
This is not about merely disagreeing with someone. Case in point: Alex Jones led a campaign claiming that Sandy Hook was a hoax and then released the names and addresses of parents of children who were killed, resulting in them receiving death threats from other sick fanatics. That's not free speech, it's a perverted lie formulated in a malicious, fevered mind. This has no place in a public forum. Also, note that many of us on the left also applaud the banning of Louis Farrakhan, whose anti semitism has had a platform for far too long.
4
I didn't hear anyone on the right fuss about the bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They said the Baker could run his business any way he wants. So why can't Facebook do the same? Especially considering that the gay couple hurt no one, while Alex Jones has caught irreparable harm.
4
Your understanding of how platforms actually work, before the regulatory bodies took notice and now could use some daylight... it qualifies as “fire in a crowded theatre”. Not even close.
1
The Dems and the co chairs of the Women's March movement had better take note and get their acts together, condemn hate speakers like Farrakhan because divided they will fall.
Can this country survive more wild west Trumpworld?
1
It’s about time. Freedom of press doesn’t mean selling hatred.
9
Alex Jones and those of his ilk are free to spew what they want. That doesn't mean Facebook has to host it. Facebook is also free to shut them down. Bye bye Alex.
42
@jzimola -- Thank you. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many?
2
@Mark Kessinger
Because it always ends up with one side determining what is and is not ‘hate’ speech.
1
@EGD
It’s hate speech when it provokes somebody to fire an assault rifle in a pizza joint. I think that’s a good field test.
Alex Jones isn’t some political truth teller, he’s a provocateur who influences unstable minds and puts lives at risk. Facebook doesn’t owe him anything, and he’s perfectly free to play the fool in his own house.
5
I have been a proud member of the left my whole but my political camp is officially becoming the thought police. This fascism and support for censorship is abhorrent. You don't get to run the brains and mouths of others, liberals. When you try to do so you make the country and all of our minds worse off in the process.
I personally enjoy listening to my political enemies; it helps me think about an issue more thoroughly and sharpen my own arguments. Nothing makes you a more powerful in politics than facing the criticisms of those who disagree with what you have to say.
When America stops caring about freedom of speech and thought, we really do cease do be the country we purport to be.
I hope liberals get out of this bend toward fascism, and quick.
13
You can still go to their websites. Private companies do not have to host them, but the internet still provides them a public forum.
8
@mbky
Thank you, from another life-long leftist. You are right on all points.
I, too, always learn more from my enemies than I do from my friends.
Keep the faith. Forward to victory.
Berkeley 1964
3
I’ll bet you a buck you’ll not meet any thought police in your lifetime... possibly a jade helm conspiracy, again, but Tom Cruise will not be doing a sequel
It would appear that private for profit corporations have now become the absolute arbiters of our first amendment rights. The fact that individuals may use a private platform should not weaken one's constitutional rights. How can they ban from the internet site that which is perfectly legal to be shouted in the street? And how can they decide arbitrarily what is and what is not 'hate' speech? While these so called improvements might at first appear as cleansing, there is the erosion of freedom behind the scenes.
6
@NYer -- Alex Jones has not been denied his freedom of speech. Facebook is a private platform, and as such is free to ban any user for any reason. And let you need to be reminded, Jones operates his very own website, where he remains free to spew his nonsense to his heart's content. There is no "erosion of freedom" here.
26
How often must people be reminded that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is not, never was, never was intended to and never will be a guarantee of a particular platform from which to speak.
24
Is this the beginning if the end?
No real idea who in their right mind could buy any of these guys, but who is next?
7
Censorship like book burning perks more interest in the target's message than if it was allowed to be challenged. I can see advertising "banned by Facebook and Amazon" turning hateful books into best sellers. This article is giving him more unjustified publicity
2
I know many people who use multiple facebook accounts. I might surmise that FB has far less real accounts than suggested.
However a lot of left wing hate group activists are never banned even those who have been caught on video assaulting others over their political or religious beliefs.
3
Facebook already bans the worst of the far-left groups. It's about time they banned the ones on the far-right!
2
Like ANTIFA United? They still have a page.
1
Name them.
1
Deplatforming is 21st century book burning. I don’t necessarily agree with these banned figures (and Paul Joseph Watson is not extreme) but unless they’re inciting imminent violence per Brandenburg, they have a right to the public square, which is what Facebook has unfortunately become.
6
@W Smith Are Alex Jones, Milo, and the rest banned from the internet? No. They are not. They are free to create their own platforms, or use other existing platforms as long as they abide the terms of service therein. This is NOTHING like book burning.
6
@Michelle
That’s like saying you’re no longer allowed to publish your ideas in books, but you can scribble by hand on sheets of paper all you want and distribute on the street corner. Facebook and social media are the public square of today. Banning these individuals from those platforms relegates them to platforms with little potential audience. It is akin to book burning when books were the king of all media. The analogy is apt.
1
Social media is not a public square. It is business with the dressing of a public square. If the government shut up the idiots then I would have a problem and call that censorship.
3
So long as Facebook users are free to share content from the websites of people like Alex Jones, I fail to see what banning Jones and the others actually accomplishes.
3
This is a controversial topic. On one hand, these are private businesses and are therefore allowed to govern who uses their platform. Much like the baker that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it violated his beliefs. His business, his decision who and who not to provide services to. On the other hand, with 2.7B subscribers, they provide a platform that leans heavily to the left, and provides a substantial bias in the media (which is already heavily left leaning, a la New York Times). If they would ban some of the far left leaning activists that promote hate and divide this country, I wouldn't take exception to this. Unfortunately, it has been seen time and time again, that these organizations strictly target the right because they disagree with their ideologies. And because the sensitive left deem anything that they don't agree with as "hate speech" or "dangerous" the "tolerant left" are completely intolerant. Disappointing but not unexpected.
5
Ae soon as Facebook bans Facebook and Twitter, I'll be satisfied. Until then, not good enough.
Servers are cheap. Fast connections to the ‘Net are cheap. IP addresses are still plentiful (enough). Web programming isn’t hard. Deal with it.
4
So they banned a bunch of Conservatives and threw Farrakhan in there to appear fair. I wonder how Calypso Louie feels about being the token?
7
I understand that Facebook is a private organization and can control questionable content, but there are still First Amendment issues at play and banning him will just lead to other outlets. He still has his radio show.
I personally believe that the parents of Newtown have the right idea in terms of confronting Alex Jones,
They are trying to hold Alex Jones both fiscally and personally responsible for his lies and in light of his self admitted "psychosis" during pre-trial testimony, I would say their chances of putting him out of business are quite good.
As for the First Amendment, perhaps the larger question is why?
Why does Alex Jones have an audience?
Perhaps for the very same reason Trump is president. There are suckers born every minute.
2
WHAT government entity is involved here? the First Amendment ONLY protects us from GOVERNMENT interference!
16
@Kathy I really wish more Americans understood this. There seems pretty good evidence that even the president is unclear that the constitutional prohibition of restricting free speech refers to the government. Either people know better or the ignorance is deeper than I suspected. We see many cases of deliberate confounding of these points, but it's time we as a society better grasp the distinction between private businesses and the government. The alternate is for the US government to nationalize Facebook. Is this what people want? Not likely.
7
Freedom is scary for the weak minded.
For one, there is not such thing as “hate speech”
For two, if you don’t like what someone has to say change the channel/web address/etc, or use your freedom of speech to debate them.
As far as facebook, this is one of the reasons I don’t use their product, if they are going to limit speech they need to be considered a publisher and be held legally liable to ANYTHING said on their site, censor and write your narrative and be a publisher, or be a open platform, you can’t be both.
8
What took them so long?
7
I quit my Facebook account by choice because they act like they are doing you a favor to use their product. That is not how business works. You lie to me about your product and i quit using your product. Simple. Why anyone would still use facebook after all that has come out about them amazes me. Wake up people!
7
So, are they going to drop left-wing hatemongers like Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary, Obama? It's only the left calling for violence, especially against anyone on the Right. But they won't because they don't see the hate and violence of the left as being wrong.
6
@Rich: I must have missed Nancy’s speech full of hate. Please print it here. Oh, and Obama’s. I personally have never heard him utter a hateful word. Please, give me the quote and where exactly you read/heard it. I long to know the truth.
17
The right is actually committing the violence, as we’ve seen in Pittsburgh, Poway, Charleston, Charlottesville, Christchurch, Gainesville, etc. regardless of how often you people lie about that. And US law enforcement agencies know it.
9
@Rich: If you don’t respond to my first reply, I’ll think you were just making up stuff about only the “left” calling for violence.
3
To those who are calling this an affront to the freedom of speech: even were Facebook not a private company that can set its terms of use entirely as it pleases, the First Amendment is not without limitation. Precedent has established that there can be no crying of 'Fire' in a crowded theater. Inflammatory speech with no basis in fact is surely equivalent to yelling 'fire' in a crowded place. It provokes a mass reaction (fear, hysteria, anger) that is almost certain to cause widespread harm to others.
No right exists without a correspondent responsibility. Those who don't exercise that responsibility should not have the right. It's really very simple!
9
There would be no problem with this if Facebook (and Twitter and all the other social media) were treated as a publisher and subject to the same laws governing print and broadcast media.
If so, Facebook would be sued out of existence for defamation in about 5 minutes.
Good.
5
Remember, there is no guaranteed right to free speech on Facebook. Its a private platform, not the public square. Your speech is their product. Hate speech just happens to be a business liability these days. Frankly, hate speech seemed to have been very profitable for Facebook in the short term, but in the last two years it has brought down so much scrutiny that the financial tides shifted and the had to divest "ahem" I mean "take a principled stand".
8
So far as Jones is concerned, I would say good riddance if I ever used Facebook. But I am concerned about private businesses limiting freedom of speech.
As others have observed, the 1st Amendment protects only against government limitations on speech. But, as unions discovered with respect to shopping malls, etc., there are public squares that owned by private parties. Foreclosing speech in such places may effectively foreclose any effective speech.
There is clearly some speech (and other expressive conduct) that does not deserve protection. Hate speech likely to incite mistreatment of others, the kind of speech Mr. Jones traffics in, should not be protected.
But the fact that most people disagree with something is not a reason for limiting speech.
The question is 'who should decide?' I'm not sure that Mark Zuckerberg is the person I would choose.
4
I guess sunlight is NOT the best disinfectant, Mark Zuckerberg's opinion is.
8
Robert Figueroa writes that freedom of speech should not be confused with hate speech. Freedom of speech absolutely includes the freedom to share views that others may find hateful. The freedom stops short of allowing true threats or the direct incitement of imminent lawless violence -- but must permit all other "hate speech." If the First Amendment only protected inoffensive platitudes, it wouldn't be worth much. And when an entity like facebook plays such a prominent role in hosting today's marketplace of ideas, it must not be allowed to trample the freedom of speech as it is doing.
3
Freedom of speech only guarantees that you won't be jailed for what you say. It does not guarantee you the right to be able to say what you want on a privately owned platform. Nobody's free speech is being violated here. Whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing is worth debating but stop with the 1st amendment violation rhetoric. It's their platform and they can choose who to allow on it.
19
Alex Jones is far right? That's news to me. He is a nut case... but far right? Either way I find it wrong and unsettling for Facebook to ban anyone because they don't like them and what they are saying. The "far left media" is creating extremists
7
@Lorne yes, he is clearly far right! Not that there isn’t hateful speech on the left/far left, but it seems to come much more from the right/far right which makes complete sense when you think about it.
4
OK, far right proven liar. That good?
3
He's about as far right as one can get!
3
We MUST clear all deceitful and hateful content from our public media. It's an interesting phenomenon that nearly all those being removed for these reasons are right-wing nuts like Alex Jones. To the extent left-wing nuts are also being deceitful their content should also be removed, but deceit doesn't seem to be as big a part of their playbook as it is for the right.
4
Do you have a list of names in mind? I’m curious to know.
How about a boycott of Twitter until they shut down Trump's account for inciting hate.
16
For those going on about freedom of speech, it is important to understand what freedom of speech actually is. Under the Bill of Rights, the GOVERNMENT cannot impede your right to free speech (under most circumstances). That doesn't mean that Facebook, a private company, has to give people a platform for their speech. You want to join Facebook, you agree to a set of rules. Same for Twitter etc.
Similarly, private employers sometimes fire employees who say things that reflect badly on the company. Again -- that's not a freedom of speech issue. Private employers don't have to put up with your saying anything you want.
No one is denying anyone freedom of speech. They can spew all they want -- on a street corner. at a park.
Read the Bill of Rights. Understand what it says.
22
To all the folks worried that free speech is being curtailed. Don't worry. Alex Jones and others will find other outlets to spew their nonsense. They can still share their ideas, just not on Facebook.
13
Facebook can ban who it wants, and should ban more hate speech. As long as Alex Jones and his fellow hate mongers have their own websites, how is it limiting speech to have them on one less platform? People who want to get hate curated for them can still get it, but it just might take an extra click or two to get it. I can live with that.
11
Hate to see this speech being broadcast but can't get comfortable with this move.
5
Although I certainly do not share any opinions with these people being banned - I consider it to be a mistake: the only way to contain the far right “disease” is actually to fight it with arguments and not bans...as long as there are no laws broken. They will likely use this to claim that they are the victims of partisan politics and that their “valued” opinions and their freedom of speech are suppressed by the mass media. Their infectious ideologies do not vanish because they are banned on Facebook or twitter...they will just get more radical and dangerous.
1
No. The people who listen to their lies and drivel will ignore or explain away facts and the truth. They WANT to believe it.
1
Alex Jones belongs in jail. He’s being sued by the Sandy Hook families and here’s hoping he has to pay out 100 million dollars in penalties and fines.
16
Too little, too late.
But better late than never.
1
It’s about time. The hurt that Alex Jones has put upon the families of the Sandy Hook Murders. Saying it never happened is absolutely horrifying.
10
Based on the kinds of comments made by right wing supporters, there is considerable incendiary language floating through ordinary news websites. Of course this is defended as a lot amendment right. The remarks are insults and crude. They have no idea to whom they are speaking and yet the comments are clearly made to incite.
3
Repeatedly, I read in these Comments variations on the following:
"FB is a private outfit. Shape up or ship out."
When I was young, until the late sixties, an invariable sign over the cash register of a bar, café, restaurant, etc, said:
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody".
In other words: We're private; Shape up or ship out. Even more pointedly, If you're the wrong race, git.
This was an open, public, statement of the right and intent to discriminate, on any grounds desired or indeed just randomly.
Private, y'know? Like FB.
Then came the racial uprising of the sixties. Some people were persuaded. Some were intimidated. Some weighed the odds. Some went with the winner.
Out of it all came a new concept of "public accommodations". A restaurant is private to be sure, but there is a public interest in it, and the constitutional rights of the customers are to be recognized.
The legal setting of FB will probably shift around for a while. However, I suspect that in time, FB, and similar monopolies will come to be deemed "quasi-public institutions" not very different from a public park, where free speech rights are generally respected.
7
Does that logic apply to cake baking?
1
There is a difference between being required to serve and having people stand up on their chairs and yell FIRE!
They are accommodated on Facebook. Right up until violate the policies.
1
The real problem is that too many people are too gullible. I don't like the idea of large corporations policing speech. I understand that it's legal, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
1
I find Facebook's bans, whether of Louis Farrakhan or Alex Jones, very unsettling. Perhaps some agree that either of these individuals are extremist purveyors of " hate speech". However, I suspect many of their supporters will vehemently disagree, and instead state that Mr. Jones or Mr. Farrakhan, as the case may be, are simply expressing their opinions, with which many of their followers agree. I happen to think that each one of them is an extremist in his own right and shudder that anyone might agree with them.
However, I do think that they have the right to public forums to express themselves. And, Facebook is the most public of forums, and probably reaches more people than all the major newspapers combined. The basic problem is - who gets to decide what hate speech is ? All too often, we conflate "hate" speech with speech that offends us. The two are not the same, but I have yet to see anyone come up with a widely accepted definition.
We cannot simply proclaim that something is "hate" speech merely because it offends us or we disagree with it. Some day maybe me - or you- can be silenced just because someone disagrees with us, or we offended them. Then, those in power will have succeeded in silencing us under the pretext that we are offensive. What then-imprisonment?
Totalitarianism succeeds in great part because it prohibits dissent.
I for one would rather allow even the most offense speech on public forums than risk a system that some day could silence me.
4
Everybody is praising Facebook for banning all these people. What I see however is Facebook using its power to politically Influence People. For the most part the people in groups that were banned for people on the right politically. There are a few exceptions such as Farrakhan on the left that got banned. But for the most part this was just another political ploy by Facebook.
5
@Jon
They're banning the hate speech, not paying attention to politics. If the hate speech is more prevalent on one side than the other, that's something to think about, rather than expecting equality of outcomes, rather than fair treatment for all.
7
And? Facebook is not a government entity. if people dislike this move or policy, they can stop using Facebook. That's the free market.
11
Farrakhan is by no means on the left. But I wonder what made you think that he is?
To those arguing that this is somehow a first amendment issue: Facebook is a private company that offers its voluntary users no rights—except maybe the right to have your personal data sold to advertisers.
9
If you don’t know that FB is an agent of our government, you have been living in a hole. This is targeted censorship and FB hiding behind some benevolence-of-intent is ludicrous to anyone who has been paying attention to the interdependence of intelligence agencies, social media giants and our civil liberties.
1
As it’s been determined the masses can’t discern truth from fiction, purveyors of social media have thrown us a bone by censoring the more egregious fibbers. And yes some of those miscreants’ misleading claptrap is rude, some hurtful, and some arguably hateful. That private companies aren’t held to freedom of expression is also true. But the social media companies are public broadcast platforms with the ability to influence, including by censoring thought. That readers wouldn’t be encouraged to develop critical thinking skills, skepticism, and the benefits of exposure to alternative thoughts will make us less able than we can be. It will also make us vulnerable to fake news be it from a foreign disruptive power or our own fellow citizens. We are on a slippery slope of censorship independent of the private business exemption. The reasons that prevent government from interfering with freedom of expression are just as valid for a global social media platform with unprecedented reach. Allowing our tech masters to decide what we can experience, has the same problems that an Orwellian Ministry of Information has.
5
I agree completely. the fact that we believe by censoring speech of any kind will make us more likely to not have hate or have better discourse has been disproven time and time again by totalitarian regimes. A nation with true free speech and a truly free press is the only nation that can survive not only attacks from foreign enemies, but more importantly domestic
2
All good points. But unfortunately, the majority of American citizens do not appear capable of critical thinking and do not appear willing to cultivate it in themselves. So what do we do in the meantime while we’re waiting around for a more informed public? Let society be destroyed because propaganda is easier to craft than it is to disbelieve in?
1
@Byron It's ridiculous to suggest that Facebook users will not develop critical thinking skills because the company removes accounts known for peddling hateful lies. Anyone who didn't have such skills before joining the site is not going to develop them by using Facebook.
You left out the fact that anyone who uses the site agrees to refrain from certain types of speech listed in the site's TOS. Would you say the site does not have the right to enforce the TOS that every user has agreed to? Surely not.
Facebook is a powerful platform, but it is a private one, built and maintained by private funds. Its owners have the right to limit its use in whatever way they wish, and anyone who promises to respect those limits and breaks the promise should be banned.
3
I have to laugh about the Farrakhan ban. I find the man to be odious and hateful...but I can't help but feel like this was done so that Facebook could "both sides" this thing in the same way the media likes to do. We all know where the vast majority of the hatred comes from in this country. The recent synagogue attacks - indeed, the fact that all the terrorism in the US is now done by white nationalists and Nazis - show that it's all coming from the right wing. The media and the social media platforms are too scared of being accused of bias to point out the obvious.
4
that's neither true nor factual. there is a huge rise in violence on both sides and recent studies by Yale and others have shown so. to minimize the violence on the left minimize all the violence. Antifa and some of its offshoots come to mind of violence on the left. do we look away because it suits a certain ideology? isn't that the same thing the white nationalist think?
3
@Andrea C Maietta who are Antifa's offshoots? Or did you just make that up? I carry no water for Antifa, but come on - their activity is essentially street brawls with their right-wing counterparts (Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, etc). It's akin to street gangs fighting one another.
However, the people shooting up synagogues, burning churches in the south, sending pipe bombs to the media and public figures, and conspiring to kill elected officials - all of those come from the right. Every. Single. One. We have a burgeoning right-wing/white nationalist terrorism problem in this country. People are putting their heads in the sand with their "both sides" rhetoric.
2
@Vin
"and conspiring to kill elected officials - all of those come from the right. Every. Single."
A fat deliberate LIE.
You didn't bother to consult the Yale study Andrea referred to, did you?
Who do you think shot the GOP playing golf? What about the recent arrest by FBI of a guy who planned to detonate a bomb at a White nationalist rally?
1
Im tired of Alex Jones, Milo and others yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. They have done alot of harm to the dialog in America. Shameful, horrible people who sold their souls for a shekel.
13
Alex Jones is the anti christ.
But all of you cheerleaders of this decision either can't or won't see the slippery slope.
2
@Is the Apocalypse here yet?
Slippery slope is a debate fallacy. It's not actually a valid argument.
1
Alex Jones and the rest of that obnoxious and sorry bunch can start their own FB counterpart. All they need is $$ millions to fund it.
Then they can have all that lovely space to spread their hate and show pictures of their grandmas, babies, and dogs.
3
Waitaminit, didn't Apple, YouTube, and FB ban Jones and Infowars last year?
What's different this time?
1
You don't get it. The videos of Alex Jones claiming that the Sandy Hook killings were hoax should continue to be played everywhere. Why? Because as soon as he spouts anything, all one has to do is site those videos to prove that he is an unhinged lunatic.
Big mistake.
1
@Erik
Some believe those videos. Playing it adds to it's credibility. The notion that people will see the loons for the fools they are has been proven false by multiple attacks and the anti-vaxx community.
3
Problem is that about 30 percent of the American people believe this nonsense. Citing it to them will not prove to them that it is nonsense. They'll take it as the truth.
2
I can think of at least one other "fringe figure" Facebook should consider banning.
3
It’s cool. You can still check out Alex Jones on The Howard Stern Show. Comedic gold.
1
“We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence...”
Since when! What about Myanmar! That was less than 6 months ago! We will never forget the violence Facebook allowed.
Facebook is an energy vampire. The Russian use of Facebook groups to influence the 2016 election along with the nonsense and ranting I saw everyday made me happy to leave. Facebook became a free for all after opening up to the general population instead of staying exclusive to college students.
There’s hardly a thread of knowledge here about Freedom of Speech.
In short yes Facebook should ban racist groups, anti Semitic groups or individuals and groups and individuals promoting violence. Those anti social misfits still have freedom of speech to go to and create their forums which they do and will.
6
In Canada, "hate speech" is unlawful. Sounds right to me.
4
Gee. Alex Jones could be out there. Even if you're not a regular listener. Some very smart people might agree with him on vaccines, GMO's and multi-level marketing schemes between government and social media. But Isn't what's really happening is the banning of free speech? Tosh you say it's Facebooks' house. No it's you that's after free speech of any kind you disagree with. And who tells you what you should be agreeing on?
I really doesn't matter. Other sites will spring up that will let people have their say.
2
@JoeG: Hate speech is illegal. It should be prosecuted, Joe G. Why do you disagree?
1
@Concrete Man
If I said I hated Nazi's is it a crime? Why?
But more to the point I heard on NPR the BBC has banned such commentary as "What do mean climate change causes bad weather? Haven't we always had bad weather? Prove it". That's where this is leading.
1
It’s about time. I am a fan of free speech, regardless of the words, but when the words fail to elevate and uphold acceptable community standards, no dice. Now, can we talk about imposing civil penalties and sanctions for speech that violates the peace? It’s not so hard.
6
The first step to limitess censorship and removal of free speech within the entire digital domain. A chilling message to all activists whose ideas challenge the status quo. Besides Farrakhan, none of these individuals has a record of any racist statements.
Has Alex Jones promoted violence? No. His popularity and following needed to be silenced. What exactly is vitriol, and will mainstream media news personalities on Fox News now somehow be justifiably banned? Is the system capable of absorbing criticisms or are those who make one or two politically incorrect statements permanently branded extremists. Is excommunication a viable strategy for removing the influence of actual hate speech and hateful individuals, or is it better to have all their manuevers, tactics, and methods emerge as part of the public discourse?
4
violence often does not include a physical stick, The false flag story that Jones promoted about the Sandy Hook massacre created lots of anquish, stress, exhaustion... I'd be surprised if these proponents of hateful ideas could truly enter what you refer to as a "public discourse". Their intent and modus operandi is to inflame the unreasonable & stir raw emotions. To disrupt efforts to be objective & upend "discourse".
2
@kfm Violence is the use of physical force.... i did not know Facebook could use physical force.....?
Terrible move. Censorship never works. And it’s immoral and literally un-American. You just made free speech heroes out of these yahoos.
And the libs love it.
7
I'd rather see good speech overwhelm and replace bad speech, as opposed to banning it outright.
3
Facebook is a waste of time. Close your account. I got out in 2013 thank god.
8
Good riddance to all of them! The demented ravings of those people materially contribute to situations where innocent people could end up dead. Alex Jones already provoked a man to fire an assault rifle in a pizzeria. What more is Facebook supposed to wait for?
Social media is not the government and doesn’t owe a platform to dangerous crackpots, any more than I owe them the right to spray paint graffiti on my house.
15
Zuckerberg would be a heroic patriot if he single handedly banned all immoral and malevolent people who don’t stand a chance of redemption.
I don’t care who they are, if they’re evil, they have got to go.
Save America Zuck, you got us into this nightmare.
First they came for the conspiracy theorists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a conspiracy theorist.
Then they came for the far-right media personalities, and I did not speak out— because I was not a far-right media personalities.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
4
Unclear how folks with millions of followers, generating some of the most viewed content on social media are considered "fringe" by the NYT.
3
Crazy that people think Facebook is a news source. Wow the Facebook addiction is so deep. It’s incredible unimportant social media junk.
Btw they sell all your data. They know what you do. So does google.
You’re all getting used. Hahaha you actually think you’ll miss something important! Wow. Check yourself out.
If you’re that deep in Facebook see a therapist and get live real social connections. Staying in touch with the person next to you who are all day at her desk on a job 5 years ago is insane. The cats and kids pics, the vapid empty lame conversations and fake networking are plain crazy. No wonder some of you want hate speech so you can feel something.
3
Funny and true
@Elias No Facebook Account
But the puppy videos... THATS why I love Facebook.
4
Great news! Now Facebook needs to extirpate the hate mongers that use "private groups." One they do, they will once again have my support. Just goes to show that the public IS a force for change that not even media giants can ignore.
1
You know, the company has been criticized for its left-wing bias and hypocrisy, not just for "allowing conservative and other far-right, fringe figures to exist on the platform".
But you guys apparently share the same bias.
1
Twitter, if you're listening, please follow suit and bar Trump.
You could follow the FB lead and bar individuals and others who "promote or engage in violence and hate."
1
Too little too late.
Just ask the Newtown families.
5
Finally. How can public slander and inciting violence against innocent people be allowed, all for the aggrandizement and profit of people who exploit the public trust?
1
I love these comments. The same people who think every book published should be in their city library or its censorship, want people taken off the Internet.
2
Libraries are government funded, therefore protected by the first amendment from censorship. Facebook is a privately owned corporation, allowed to censor, ban, and remove whoever they want based on their terms of service. No one is stopping these bigots from creating their own sites and hosting their own content.
5
@Shamrock
Alex Jones is perfectly free to play the fool in his own house, or anywhere else. Facebook doesn’t owe him anything.
Lives may even have been saved by this action, in view of the fact that an Infowars zombie already fired an assault rifle in a pizza joint. Reflect on that.
2
Facebook should not be in the business of regulating content. When it started out, it pledged to remain neutral and sought to be a platform for free speech. I believe this was consistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act too. Now they are getting in the business of regulating content?
I am no lawyer, but if they are making an effort to go against the law then that can get them in big trouble. Ultimately, if you don't like people like Alex Jones or Louis Farakhan, don't visit their pages or websites. Hate speech is free speech and in this day and age we need more people like Jones and Farakhan to remind us of what viewpoints not to embrace. Silencing them only makes them martyrs.
2
About time! I keep telling my friends, please send me an email with attached photos if important. Not that hard to set up a group of tied together emails, or, frankly, just type them in separately.
Imagine that!
Enforcing their own content policies.
Too bad so much damage has already been done while facebook looked the other way.
11
@CC
FB is losing profits. As all Americans know, profits rule. it is amazing that FB would even think of doing this. Right now, I believe FB is advising Alex Jones and others how to get around their system. Money is involved here. More important than anything.
2
Facebook: Private business with terms of service. If you do not like them go elsewhere. There are no lack of places for bottom crawlers, conspiracy paranoia peddlers, haters of every flavor and kind to broadcast their poisonous bile.
All you hand wringers forget the First Amendment applies to government action. A private entity has fewer restrictions, particularly when FB can show other venues exist for such speech. What you critics hiding behind "free speech" can't abide is the loss of a huge and gullible audience skewed toward the impressionable young. That is the real reason behind the screeching, not some disinterested seminar room discussion of the First Amendment or internet law.
Read this paper's articles archived on this site dealing with what Jones and his operation (and deluded followers) did to the suffering parents of martyred kids at Newtown Conn (Sandy Hook Elementary). Vile is too kind a word for this creep and his operation.
20
@Unworthy Servant Well said.
Facebook did the right thing here based and protected NOT violated the first amendment. Under the amendment, there are some types of speech not protected; here are seven basic categories of speech most experts would agree are not protected: hate speech, inciting violence, supporting terrorism, public employee speech, defamation, and intellectual property.
The bulk of the posts of the people banned from Facebook today fit into one of these categories. If it were a matter of one or two inflammatory posts from these people the posts could be removed but when the bulk of an individual's posts fits into a non-protected category than Facebook should ban the person. Society should not ask Facebook to control the content on its site and then get angry when it does just that while remaining in the boundaries of the first amendment.
8
@KJR Webmasters
There is no profit in doing the right thing. And they have never done the right thing before. Believing Facebook is like believing Trump.
1
@gratis You are correct in general about Facebook, however once in a while they do the right thing. This is one of those rare times, this group of haters is off of Facebook, and Facebook did not violate anyones first amendment rights in banning them. I wonder how long it will taken until this group of haters return to the platform with fake identities, what will Facebook do then...
Facebook's finally limiting hate groups/individuals to use it as a platform to spew their vitriolic messages is a sign that the company acknowledge some of its responsibilities as a media outlet. But recent history has shown that these companies are not able to regulate themselves. While this is a step in the right direction, and has been long overdue, just as public radio and television stations are regulated by government oversight , the same should apply to electronic media outlets.
203
@Dom M
What if I consider what you just said as “hateful” can we censor you?
Freedom of speech, I don’t think you understand what it means, it’s not just speech you agree with.
7
@Joe
Freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything/everything nor does it guarantee any right to access in all outlets (especially a private company like Facebook)
25
@sjs
"Freedom of speech does not include the right to say anything/everything..."
Then who is to decide what it does include? In old times it was the church.
Is it now his highness Mark Zuckerberg? Or maybe he and Bezos? Or them plus Soros?
Who exactly should have the monopoly on the free speech censorship? Maybe you, sjs? Or some al from Boston? Why not Louis Farrakhan?
6
Good. I'm glad to see them making solid moves, rather than hemming and hawing, wringing their hands, and ducking for cover. They will probably make some wrong calls on the way but it's refreshing to see them be pro-actively operating out of some semblance of "values" and vision for the platform, rather than a milquetoast and utterly naive idea of global community that self-regulates.
146
@Emily I'm on the left and I completely disagree. I'd much rather see Facebook embrace freedom of expression as a vision for the platform and yes--allow individuals globally to make up their own minds about what to think about the content they see. I do not need anyone in Silicon to babysit my brain--I can think for myself, as can other human beings.
Everybody deserves the fundamental human right to express themselves, and for a platform that has turned into basically the globe's political activism tool to dishonor this right makes the world and every free thinking person's life a much worse place.
4
@mbky
"I can think for myself..."
This is exactly what the liberal handlers of Zuckerberg are dreading.
3
@al What's so beautiful about the internet today is that nobody is "in charge" of judging human expression for anyone else anymore! Not publishers, not teachers, not preachers, nobody. Everyone can think, critique and judge for themselves. It's truly the dawn of a new and beautiful era for era for freedom of thought and expression!
Now all people have to do is get off Facebook!
2
My only thought was: Why did it take them so long? And then of course, I had the immediate answer--because allowing dangerous kooks like Alex Jones unfettered access to billions of eyeballs was lucrative in the extreme for Facebook. Now they are facing social backlash, fines, and maybe even lawsuits, so they suddenly "got religion>" I have stopped using Facebook, and I am sure millions of others have as well. As long as it is a swamp for lying provocateurs like Jones, I want no part of it.
347
@William O, Beeman
It's also worth noting that FB probably had this list of low hanging fruit kicking around for a while for when it needed to do the absolute minimum possible to make it look like it was behaving responsibly.
38
@Sean
"to make it look like it was behaving responsibly..."
Suppressing free speech looks like a perverted sense of responsibility.
Responsibility to whom? The dogmatic bigots busy brainwashing the country to their holly doctrine?
This is what the Great Inquisition did. Catholic priests burned Copernicus for his 'fake' and grossly offensive to the pious planetary theory. Nazis publicly burned books. Soviets banned books. The Chinese filter the internet.
What's next? Burning websites and blogs? Why not computers? Or their owners? With their families...
6
@al
Eh, don't be so dramatic. Countries in Europe have similar policies regarding hateful speech or inciting violence. It tends to work, and people don't get burned at the stake.
26
Freedom of speech should not be confused with hate speech. I support the move to ban people that spread hate and violence. Maybe they could institute a probationary period if there’s no hateful content then the account can be reinstated.
Thank You
Robert
119
@Robert Figueroa - help me understand what’s hate speech ? Shall we start banning AOC or Maxine Waters from speaking I find their message to be very hateful and damaging to our societal norms. Who gets to make the decision to stifle their speech?
It used to be shouting fire in a crowded theater where there was no fire. Served no legit purpose, unnecessarily created an imminent risk to life safety - not protected speech.
Respecting the right of people to spout their rhetoric is what defines this country - even if it’s distasteful, ugly and completely hate filled. That’s their right - it’s when a speech turns to an action or overt behavior that is the line.
14
@Robert Figueroa Would you recommend banning organized religions?
3
@First Ammendment
Spouting hate likely to provoke violence may define your country but does not define mine.
There is no room in America for such hate speech. We do not have to wait until AFTER violence occurs to curtail it.
27
Freedom of speech is not about only saying things everyone approves of, it is precisely about saying things that some people do not approve of.
87
@Pelasgus
But there are limits. You are not allowed to shout 'fire' in a theater if there is no fire.
54
@Pelasgus
Facebook is not required to adhere to the first amendment protection. Alex Jones wants to spew conspiracy theories? Great. He can, on his own website.
Walking into a business and screaming “fire!” is not protected by the first amendment either.
115
Pelasgus,
Alex Jones claimed that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened, causing the parents of the murdered children to receive death threats on top of the already unimaginable pain and suffering they were experiencing. (All so that he could make a buck.)
That's not free speech. It's harassment.
214
I can only wonder why FB waited this long to ban the reprehensible Alex Jones from Facebook. He deserves extreme public shaming for the lies he has spread and the pain he so recklessly visited upon the suffering parents of children and one teacher slaughtered in the Sandy Hook shooting. My hope is that he will be bled dry financially-- in court--by every last one of those people and their families he so heartlessly damaged with his horrifying lies--that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened. I hope we can incarcerate him for an extended time and make certain he cannot profit with a book or interviews or employment in any sort of "news" ever again. What kind of a person would do this? This is what evil looks like.
504
@feral carole Agreed.
28
@feral carole
"I can only wonder why FB waited this long to ban the reprehensible Alex Jones from Facebook. "
It's basically the lowest hanging fruit it can do to make it look like it's being proactive. After this I doubt you'll see systemic change over how FB deals with extremists who advocate for violence openly.
It's like when you threaten a kid who isn't doing their chores with being grounded and they go wash a single load of laundry and pretend like they've been working so hard and deserve a pass now.
14
@Sean I agree with you that Jones is "low hanging fruit," but it's a good start and I think we all should call on our representatives to put more pressure on FB. Many people in Congress believe FB should have more federal oversight; I agree. It has been shown ad nauseum that companies do a poor job of policing themselves. I happily am not a member of FB. I think people who use FB should help with the policing, even write letters to Congress. Many members of Congress also want to have more government oversight of FB. Facebook has shown that they are not up to the job, and it is time for others, who don't stand to profit from FB policies, to create more equitable policies. Perhaps, for starters, they should stop accepting payments in rubles?
10
Cool. I suppose 'far left' organizations are exempt from this?
More ammo for the 'tech is against us' argument peddled on the right.
4
Tech should be against the right. They are all evil.
1
It is time, Facebook has finally taken some serious action. No one should be allowed to spread hate. Those who did, used the social media as a convenient avenue to promote and spread fale theories and stories.
Facebook should not just confine its actions in the US, it should be applied to locations outside the US. Recently, the Sri Lanka government placed a temporary ban on all social media, including Facebook. Previously, certain sections of the people had used Facebook to spread fake propaganda. that had resulted in sectarian disturbances. This is what Facebook should be looking at, and prevent people from using the platform for illegal purposes.
This recent action by Facebook is a welcome sign. However, Facebook must do more, and show people that it is an organization that has proper rules and regulations, and policies to safeguard people's information and privacy. That should always be the priority for Facebook.
1
There’s no freedom of speech issue and all the crazies will use their other hate forums. Facebook isn’t a news organization nor is the head a constitutional lawyer, a journalist or editor. We know that Facebook and Cambridge Analytica gave us Trump and we also know that many characters domestic and foreign especially Russian instigators posing as Americans and American entities worked endlessly to spread misinformation and even incite violence. There is never room for Holocaust deniers. No two opinions.
There’s no Charlottesville right wing neo Nazi voice to be heard. Free speech let’s them use their forums.
Use your head.
5
That’s it in a nutshell
Guess that’s a positive move.
Meanwhile the proliferation of fake FB personas continues unchecked.
The ads, and a handful of bad actors are at least being addressed. But the real online attack on our country is coming from armies of fake accounts on FB and Twitter.
To date, despite claims to the contrary, little or nothing has been done to cull these accounts despite efforts by users to report them, even when they steal photos and names from legitimate users.
2
Finally!
Treat every hate-monger, every violence propagator and all propagandists with the same baton.
Hate is hate, and as evident now, it does kill people.
When you live in a secular state, you do not have the right to violate and insult someone’s beliefs or ideas etc and provoke others — unless they’re doing things which are against the law!
I don't understand... why do folks forget the basic human tenet of decency....
“Do not do unto others what you don’t want done to yourself.”
Is that difficult to comprehend?
What about kindness and plain old polite human discourse?
When the first time I saw an interview done by BBC with Milo Y., you could feel his anger and hate through the screen, it was astounding. It reminded me of ISIL videos mouthing off on everyone— the clothing and the language approach was different but the meaning underneath was the same.
I’m accepting of everyone— just not this bunch of violence promoters and liars!
5
Alex Jones would ban Muslims from entering the country, promotes treating potential immigrants on our southern border in inhumane ways, would ban gay or transgendered people from serving in the military, and has continually promoted violence connected to bizarre conspiracy theories (all to drive up his viewership), etc. But, having repeatedly violated Facebook's terms of agreement, he claims he is being censored by the "deep state" and nefarious forces. Prohibitions are fine with him . . . just as long as he can do anything he wants.
He is common, ugly bully, like his hero, President Trump. And like all bullies, he can dish it out, but can't take it. May Alex Jones and the other conspiracy theorists mentioned in this article recede to their own private cesspools.
15
@jrinsc
Trump wants everything you say Alex Jones wants. Trump is also guilty of every rules violation you listed as having been committed by Jones. But Trump has not been banned by Facebook or Twitter. I guess they have a policy that you can't ban a sitting president. Ugh. I remember an America in which no man was above the law. Nixon was forced to resign because of his crooked actions. Now, a few decades later, he looks almost angelic by comparison.
2
The right wing haters will cry “censorship” —but it’s really funny how conservatives and Republicans always champion the Right of any organization of theirs to exclude any person or group of persons that they don’t like at any time for any reason whatsoever——-
Unless, of course, when they are the ones being excluded! Then they get on their high horse and start yelling about “liberty” and “freedom” and “tyranny”!
LOL =8-)
1
Hey, with all of this new gatekeeping of content, it looks like Facebook is turning into . . . wait for it . . . (drum roll) . . . a newspaper! You see, the tech brats like Zuckerberg all derided newspapers as old-school, but now they’re finding out that their community’s content has to be monitored and moderated by professionals, just like newspaper editors have done for the last couple centuries or so.
What’s old is new again.
5
Earth to Twitter....
His name is Donald Trump. A clear and present danger to democracy.
17
Glad to hear it. Among the many horrible and insane things that has come out of Alex Jone's mouth, the worse is his insistence that the Sandy Hook massacre of innocent children was a hoax. This is a sick, despicable excuse for a human being.
7
While I applaud Facebook's move here, the more fundamental problem is how Facebook segments it's users into groups, and shows them like-minded content. This tends to promote a 'group-think' and an 'us-vs-them' mentality. This is poisonous to our social and political discourse.
However, if Facebook can simply ban terrorists, conspiracy theorists, and fake profiles this will be a positive step in the right direction.
2
This is purely a PR ploy by Zuckerberg. AJ and his ilk have only to establish a new account on a different computer, tweak their usernames and BOOM! they are back in business, an infinitely repeatable response.
Zuck's name is mud in Washingtoon, the 50 states, Europe and points north, south, east and west. His brainchild has not shown much in the way of progress in tamping down the noxious beast that it has become.
2
Denigration and incitement are not protected or promoted by any civilized, stable society regardless of the citation.
If shameless profiteering by any entity allows the likes of Alex Jones, or his brethren, to sow discord and violence in our communities, we will all suffer the consequences.
Sound familiar?
2
In the long run I'd prefer Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg over Alex Jones (and his ilk), but in the long run Zuckerberg and Sandberg have done exponentially more damage to the social network (double entendre intended) of our country than the right wing fanatics.
Ultimately their greed and ego's got the better of whatever "better" they might have once had.
2
There are exceptions to the First Amendment. You cannot shout “fire” in a movie theater, for instance.
Nor should one torment the bereaved families of Sandy Hook, in one case, resulting in a parents suicide.
1
Alex Jones should be grateful. He needs to be kept from displaying his grotesque nature, but can’t seem to help himself. At some point, even if he doesn’t feel regret someone around him will feel it and experience hurt by association with someone so indecent. He should have been shunned before he harmed the Newtown and Parkland families.
2
Facebook = Mistook, for something worthwhile.
Sad.
What I want to know is - When will they ban anti-vax and other dangerous quackery?
3
@Mike That's an easy one: When doing so makes more money than the current system.
Trump tried to ban users from his Twitter followers and was denied because his account contained information he disseminated as President, and thus was information the public had a right to access and reply to.
Facebook and Instagram are privately owned and its users do not disseminate information as a public entity. Alex Jones, et al, certainly can build and maintain their own websites, to say and show what they want. Arguments that this is an infringement on their First Amendment protections is inaccurate, since no one is preventing them from having a forum of some sort that anyone can access.
Private entities have a right to decide whom they allow on their sites. There may be exceptions, but that would be for the courts to decide.
7
And, there are already limits to speech, whether it be commercial or personal. There are so many scenarios where you can limit it, but two well-known examples include obscenities on certain media and threats. There are also free-speech zones on college campuses. Many of these limitations have been debated, and have been settled in the courts. We need to figure out social media’s “free-speech zone” in the courts. Right now it’s the wild west.
2
No one is entitled to free speech on FB or any other social media platform. They’re corporations that can set their own rules of behavior and content.
10
I'm hard-pressed to view this ban as a violation of free speech; it merely resets the conditions of free speech access to the wide-open horizons of the pre-"social media platform" realm.
Social media umbrella sites like Facebook don't facilitate wider access to information on the Internet; they work as a reducing valve, often gratuitously and capriciously. I don't find that to be at all desirable in the first place. Although it's easy for me to understand the benefits for propagandists and advertisers.
My advice to adult Internet users is to get out in front of the curve and go to text-only formats for the core focus of serious news and current affairs information. And do your own keyword searches, instead of passively waiting around for AI programs designed to toady to your prejudices to deliver superficial infotainment to you like bon-bons being served to a pampered child.
3
Facebook honestly thinks there is anything they can actually do to redeem itself after all we’ve learned about how they really feel about its users? Why Alex Jones was even on the site in the first place for FB now to ban tells one all they need to know about the values of FB.
11
Many people here are confusing freedom of speech with First Amendment protections. Freedom of speech is the ability to articulate views and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. First amendment protections may not apply to private entities, but that is beside the point. If you support these bans, you support limiting freedom of speech. You have the right, of course, to do that--but you should at least be honest about it!
5
@Walter - Um, that's precisely the point. Speech is not entirely without consequences, you can't engage in slander or phony threats that endanger people's safety etc. You can't tell your boss exactly what you think of him/her without expecting to deal with the results and so on.
3
Freedom of speech does not mean you are guaranteed the right to a publisher. In this case, Facebook has decided they will no longer act as a publisher for these people. That's not retaliating, censoring, or sanctioning; they are still free to try and find other publishers.
2
@DR
Is slander a viewpoint? Is a threat an opinion? The whole point of freedom of speech is to make sure that unpopular viewpoints aren’t silenced. Where does badmouthing your boss fit into that?
Not a fan of censorship, I always felt daylight was the best disinfectant. Perhaps a pop up disclaimer or warning would suffice?
5
Couldn’t agree more. Let everyone preach what they want.
2
@Simon
Are things actually better now that the racist, nationalist, and/or Fascist ignoramuses have suddenly felt free, thanks in large part to the current president's encouragement and the internet's limitless reach, to crawl out from under the rock? If they had stayed in the mud, I might agree about daylight's being the "best disinfectant," but we are seeing every evidence that the shameful, destructive words of people like Jones are too seductive for people incapable of reflection.
1
They already can and do. Facebook doesn’t have to and shouldn’t
1
I am not sure I agree with this being done, but it is a reflection of what I fear for the future.
A "society" based on and driven by non-personal contacts, with content intended to drive fury and hate, no solution necessary.
Kind of like Trump's Tweets?
9
"Facebook on Thursday said it had barred Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, and other right-wing personalities from its service, in an escalation of its enforcement of its content policies.
Louis Farrakhan, the outspoken black nationalist minister who has frequently been criticized for his anti-Semitic remarks; Milo Yiannopoulos, the provocateur and far-right media personality; and other, less-prominent but still controversial figures like Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson and Paul Nehlen were also banned."
Louis Farrakhan is a right-wing personality?
4
@areader LOL the wording was a bit unclear there, wasn't it?
Mr. Zuckerberg bans nasty right wingers from facebook but prints an editorial in his newspaper demanding that all male candidates for President withdraw. Vicious conspiracy theories and out, vicious sexism is in, provided it is directed against males.
4
@cglymour Buck up little trooper. I think men are going to be OK.
1
They’ve also banned women. Keep up. The conspiracy isn’t anywhere but in your mind.
4
@d. roseman
The men’s rights “movement” is a thing, and a scary one at that.
Under the guise of whining about alleged victimization, they seek to draw attention, and support, away from the real victims of domestic violence and economic inequality. There’s a lot of overlap between them and the white supremacy proponents.
1
There are many comments about far right organizations and Trump but lets not forget about the far left either. I am thrilled that Farrakhan a virulent anti-Semite and awful human being was banned. It's about time. Maybe now prominent democrats such as Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Jim Clyburn and even Bill Clinton will think twice before they take warm and friendly pictures with this man.
6
@Tenkan
So if Donald Trump sat next to David Duke and shook hands and took pictures with him, that would be ok with you?
1
I Farrakhan is a disgusting human being and Alex Jones is just a conspiracy theory nut.
But the problem is, each is entitled to freedom of speech and each is entitled (on a private company) to have an account if they abide by the published standards/rules.
Private companies that pick and choose people to ban based on non disclosed standards (that they do not publish) should be sued for FALSE ADVERTISING.
By false advertising, that means they are NOT providing equal standards for all, yet they are claiming they are.
It is a blatant lie to make the claim of equal standards and there should be a class action case sought against them, by the state if need be.
If they admit , and put in their TOS (terms of service) that they may not apply their standards equally, then at least users can be warned and choose to their private service - or not.
2
Good grief. Alex Jones is the most disgusting of all with his harassment of the Sandy Hook families. Despicable and evil profiting off children gunned down in their school.
1
Who says Farrakhan is fringe? A lot of people must love him considering how often he is featured on MSNBC.
3
@John Cornwall
You're confusing Sharpton with Farrakhan. Two very different people with very different histories and groups. I have watched on and off several hosts on MSNBC and Farrakhan has never been a guest. I'm not a fan of either but for very different reasons.
8
He's a provocateur and cable media isn't about journalism as much as it is about ratings and revenues
Why stop there? Maybe also bar Steve King of Iowa and Donald Trump.
9
We can add Ilhan Omar as well, but public officials are a different animal.
1
Hate speech has always been banned even under the first amendment.
In the past, those identified as medically insane were not quoted widely. They were appropriately institutionalized against their will to keep them from hurting themselves and others. Sadly, there is no place for these needy personalities to be cared for any longer. There are people who actually believe these helpless souls are entitled to gun possession.
Imagine if there had been a place for the mom of the Sandy Hook murderer to place her son in safe care.
Societal responsibility is challenging. It is difficult to make the tough calls. You can’t use social media for hate speech and you can’t shout FIRE irresponsibly in a crowded theatre.
I hope this is not the beginning of widespread coverage of the disgusting responses one can imagine coming from the filthy mind and mouth of Jones. I’m not interested in anything he has to say.
5
@Patsy "Hate speech has always been banned even under the first amendment." No it has not, based on well established First Amendment principles.
3
How does one subscribe to Freedom of Speech and yet censor some of it? It's a conundrum but one that is worth clarifying. Yes, if you allow hate speech, you are giving a stage to untruth and the promoting of violence and the dissolution of a civil society. Yes, if you don't allow hate speech, you are disavowing Freedom of Speech which means what it says and inviting the charge of hypocrisy. It is a fine line that remains abstract. But there is clear evidence that hate speech is a weapon that is not used for good but to undermine the laws of our society and society itself. Hate speech is a weapon and as a weapon, it must be managed no matter the dangers to our freedoms.
3
Ridiculous. Facebook has no freedom of speech aspect.
You’re clearly unknowledgeable about freedom of speech. The haters have their forum to spew their lies.
That’s their right. Facebook has done enough damage. Letting factual liars and hate spreaders be they anti black, anti Semitic or anti Islamic and on and on is unacceptable and Facebook is not an op Ed page, a newspaper etc.
2
@Dorothy you clearly attack instead of listen. I wasn't delineating what Facebook must or must not do according to the law. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and clearly you are also not. I was trying to understand Freedom of Speech as a freedom. Looks like I should've also included Freedom from Incivility.
1
Those that cheer this will be the same ones crying the loudest when their content gets banned and their names smeared. Think I'm kidding? Leftist sites are now getting plucked out of the conversation at a faster rate than anyone deemed, "radical right..." which, today means, anyone right of Stalin.
3
I wish we were all banned from FB. Then we could get back to the real world around us.
22
If only we could shove the internet genie back in its bottle. This move is like trying to corner and contain the air. The writers of the first amendment could never have anticipated the reach these platform provide mere individuals. But the alternative is China's Great Firewall. Woe is us.
5
Even if these sources are indeed known to have truly fabricated content, censorship of any voices can lead to deep dark holes and the loss of what might be disagreeable but not fake. What is needed is an organized, independent non-partisan, non-political online "watchdog" that identifies the truly fabricated fake news sites from authentic, well-researched, balanced journalism. Info such as the sources' credentials, do they have a board of professionals supporting the business, publicly or privately owned, well-documented ownership w/ address, financials available, how many years in business, journalism background, verifiable professional qualifications, transparency, backed by professional peer reviews, etc. Having this would enable the reader to be informed and have reason to feel confident in knowing of the best researched, least biased news outlets. Censorship disables one's availability to research all the views of a topic. An independent watchdog site which rates quality of content of all news sites would be ideal for preventing the spread of fabrications. In that case, Facebook also might garner 1.5 stars out of 5, but we'd all be better informed.
3
How about banning Facebook unless and until they offer a simple privacy policy which allows the individual users to control all of their content!
I deleted myself from FB almost a decade ago without suffering any ill effects.
How could anyone allow a company who’s motto is “Move Fast and Break Things” exercise ANY control over their content?
16
@Michijim, as a private company, FB is permitted to manage their content in any way they see fit. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment - nor is any private company. Oh, and your content became their content the moment you posted it on their site. That's in the TOS.
You print it, they own it, and as such it is theirs to delete or edit as they wish.
2
This is a private corporation that millions of people invite into their minds, like a vampire, to extract sales data. So what is the big deal, this is not worth the electrons emitting it compared to the dangerous precedent that the arrest of Julian Assange represents. The very real atrocities, if not criminality of our political class, that have been published for public benefit is not what is at stack on Facebook or Instagram.
2
I honestly think we could all use a break from Facebook as it is. The site is geared to make you triggered so you'll fall for click-bait. Banning popular, out spoken people on the alt-right is a small start to an ever increasing problem. There are many pages that spread misinformation: Flat Earther's, Religious pages that spread hate on anyone not in their camp, pages that spread lies about climate change or vital vaccinations, pages that trigger heated political battles that divide everyone into two categories of us and them, etc.
Facebook spreads so much information, and misinformation to get you fired up, and stealing your privacy while doing it that we all need to step back and ask ourselves, is it worth it? Is it worth stressing all of us out to the point their algorithm makes us addicted to it? One thing is for sure, Facebook has a long, long way to go before making it a pleasant social experience.
4
@Timaay My Facebook experience is mostly pleasant! I choose to spend most of my time there interacting with friends and family. It's what you make of it.
Extremely dangerous move by Facebook! One day the people that are cheering this now will be deeply lamenting it. And please do not insult my intelligence with the lame excuse that "FB is a private company"! What will be banned next? All the Abrahamic religions? They have been for hundreds of years the main promoters of violence and death. Why they are treated differently? As an atheist, I wouldn't support banning them, even when I consider them unhealthy cults of deaths.
11
@Pablo Cuevas, If the existence of FB pushes more countries into real civil conflict and war, is it 'providing value' or actually killing people?
The evidence at this points suggests that it truly is being used to kill people, on a fairly impressive scale. No technology is entirely benign, and this one appears to be so effectively geared towards the spread of misinformation and propoganda that its value may be highly negative to society as a whole.
2
@Pablo Cuevas This is false equivalence. The First Amendment protects religion. Facebook is free to ban whomever they please because yes, they are a private company, and the fact that they are matters. And I would suggest that the "main promoter of violence and death" for the last "hundreds of years" has been war and by extension, terrorism.
3
@Jesse King Our country and its ruling class not only push countries into real conflict and war, they get heavily involved in the war crimes our imperial forces commit around the world. Would you recommend closing out all our military recruitment centers and the corporate media that promote our criminal foreign policy?
HIgh time, too. All extremist firebrands should be banned from all social media as well as broadcast and cable media. They should not have the opportunity to spread their messages of hatred.
They will still have the right to speak at meetings and groups, as is right under the First Amendment, but it should not be easy for them to promulgate hatred.
How did such men affect the Poway and other recent shooters? One can only guess, but the Poway "manifesto" makes amazing if horrendous reading. It was written by a bright though misguided individual. It is full of the usual lies about Jews, but it is organized and clear. The shooter learned this hatred from someone or many someones.
13
@Barbara How do you define "extremist firebrand"? Who gets to decide whether someone does, or does not, fall into that category?
Moreover, are you in favor of banning particular speech, or are you banning particular people from ever speaking on this platform?
@Justin
I am in favor of banning those who use hate speech to incite violence. That seems very clear.
1
How about twitter banning trump? He is the real inciter of mass violence.
65
Ahh...but Noam Chomsky made that statement way before Facebook or any social media were even a glimmer of an idea.
Jones, et.al., have used their freedom of speech to incite others to harassment and violence.
Of course, Jones, et. al, will claim innocence; they never told anyone to be violent, they just lit the candle.
Freedom of speech is fine as long as a person is aware that it also brings with it consequences.
10
Good luck to those that support censorship it’s only a matter of time until the monster you helped create turns its focus on you.
But of course by then it will be too late. Hindsight is always 20/20. I listened to Alex Jones once before. I came to the conclusion he wasn’t worth my time and energy. Unlike so many I seem to have the strength to use the other tools made available to me to block out what I wish not to read or listen to.
Personal responsibility seems to be another value being washed away here.
10
@Nathan, weather any given individual has the intelligence to sort out the facts from the drivel and incitement is entirely besides the point.
If a would-be dictator can get a sufficient number of people to dance to his tune - historically as little as 30% of a country's population, or even less in some circumstances - then it doesn't matter if everyone else figures it out, he can still use that popular base to seize control of and destroy that country. Ask the Germans how that went for them.
3
Censorship creates martyrs and fuels existing anger. A fully educated citizenry that can thoughtfully consider all sides and engage in civil conversation is the best offense.
8
I could think of another very prominent Twitter account that would be good to have closed down!
33
Maybe everyone should ban Facebook from their lives.
I've never joined and never will. Feels great!
I don't imagine I've missed anything but perhaps seeing what some celebrity ate for breakfast last weekend on his/her post.
8
@dogrunner I'm involved in dog rescue, and we use Facebook as a platform in conjunction with the animal shelter and various rescues to make sure we have as many fosters as we can gather for dogs that need help. It's good for that, at least. I don't follow any celebrities or news articles on there.
4
There will be many who will say these hate speech profiteers have the right to speak words that hurt 'others', but those who say it aren't on the receiving end, now are they?
If you cannot recognize abuse when you see it and hear it then it is only because you might not have been a target...yet.
10
Is Zuck controlling free speech and the media now to? As well as our info?
Not sure why we keep electing Zuckerberg into power by keeping all of your info and online activity in his possession. Very strange to celebrate this as a ‘win’ my fellow readers...
5
FB is voluntary. If you don't like it's policies then don't subscribe
12
@Mucho Interestante "Is Zuck controlling free speech"
Not really, since Facebook is his company and his team sets the "rules" about how can/can't use the platform to reach an audience. If you want to talk about Facebook in terms of nationalizing it as a public utility, *then* you could begin the conversation about how free speech plays into what content is and is not allowed on Facebook.
7
Good. To quote Karl Popper:
”Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.“
48
I don’t subscribe to social media except the comments section of the NYT. From what I have seen of social media, it is a netherworld where individuals with no prior platform now have a mountain top from which to scream. Their message might be thankfully limited to 140ish characters which appears to be too many. With FB, and its multitudinous subscribing philosophers, is that it had nefarious origins to begin with (the grading of attractiveness of Harvard girls), so it was hardly likely to be navigated by a moral compass. The fact that its miraculous powers of communication were free gave complete leeway to its originators to claim ownership of identities when no permission, implied or otherwise, was offered.
This information is used ruthlessly by the corporation and its vulnerability exploited by hostile entities.
Birds of feather apparently flock together, so no wonder Alex Jones flocked to Facebook. By banning him, however, Zuckerberg et al are open to charges of hypocrisy and censorship and they should be pilloried for such even though it is ultimately the correct course of action. Alex Jones can pay for a mountain top, although I’m not sure too many would pay to view him.
8
Freedom of speech is one thing, but abusing that freedom to hurt other is another. Civility is also a freedom we should enjoy.
66
About time. Terrible haters should be banned. We have no time for their venom. Jones and Farrakhan are terrible humans.The viscous lies are so destructive and incite violence.
I wouldn’t even quote the virulent words of either. To have either of them speak at any event or funeral is an insult to intelligent people. One referred to a people as “termites”. Sad madmen with their angry informant supporters.
28
@Roscoe, I assume you meant vicious, not viscous lies.
Vicious means "brutal, savage, fiendish, etc. Viscous means "having a think, sticky consistency." Actually, both words apply, but vicious is better.
8
@Roscoe the problem with that is that someone has to be given the power to decide who the "terrible haters" are. What if, at a later date, someone decides that what you believe is "terrible hatred?" Will it be ok to ban you?
@Kathleen880 I think we can all agree that harassing parents of murdered children or inciting violence against a religious minority is beyond the pale. Inciting violence against anyone, really, or encouraging people to send death threats/swatting/other harassment by strangers to anyone should be outside of civil discourse, on further thought.
4
FB bans Jones ? Why the rush to judgement?
After pyromaniac burns down the town and destroys many lives, the hardware store promises not to sell him any more matches.
131
Good riddance.
Freedom of speech is only protected from governmental punishment.
Freedom of speech is not guaranteed on private platforms. Now, there seem to be a number of people dismayed at Facebook's decision.
They have the right and the privilege of walking away from the platform altogether.
There are many things that FB does that I don't agree with. I've deleted my account, with all my friend connections and all my photo memories, and I'm not interested in signing up to Facebook again.
175
@Sherif I agree 100% perhaps folks dismayed at Jones being removed from FB should patronize "myspace" instead.
5
@jasonmartin: Is MySpace honestly STILL going?
1
@Starkoman I thought I heard recently that it was going away. But I could be wrong!
Finally something good!!
30
now to make sure they don't pop back up there or on twitter or google or any other non-conspiracy social media channel
7
Long overdue. These people are only as big as the megaphone you hand them.
114
It's about time! I am all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean these people deserve a platform to spread their vile, harmful lies.
117
It's shocking that it took this long.
53
This is wonderful news, now how about removing some of Fox’s more colorful characters who spew lies, such as Laura Ingram and “judge” Janine?
123
@Lee V. Sure. Just as soon as Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are removed. They've done nothing but lie as well.
1
@Adam
Please state specific lies. I don't watch MSNBC or FOX, but there is a difference between cherry picking news (not great either, they both do it) and outright lying.
12
@Adam - Rachel Maddow's and Chris Hayes' shows are well researched. Rachel in particular makes a point to correct anything that was previously reported if it was untrue.
14
So the American Government will soon be banned from Facebook.
1
@M. Callahan I'd be happy if Trump was banned from Twitter.
2
This is good news. We have to remove these propagandist provocateurs from our airwaves and legitimate websites.
They're profiting from the destruction of our democracy.
We should also boycott sponsors of Fox and other propaganda outlets. Enough is enough.
34
Now if only Twitter would bar trump. He lies, provokes, slanders and incites violence. He's done more damage to civil discourse, respect for the rule of law, each other and our standing in the world than any one of the people named here.
527
@Deb
How little have we learned in the past 160 years?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~ J.S. Mill: On Liberty (1859)
5
@SteveRR This is not "mankind" silencing one person's opinions. This is a privately-held corporation deciding what content they want on their platform.
41
@Deb
What purpose would it serve for Twitter to bar Trump? Perhaps to take sides as the NYT does in spades!!! Would you also say to close down the NYT just because the Times is so far left? No. We need public forums to hear both sides. We won’t miss Louis F. He is racist and an Antisemite. He and Al Sharpton could always start another forum so they can spew their hate.
2
Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones’ effect on society is in many ways the same as that of Russian bots seeking to divide and incite the electorate. Facebook’s action is shamefully overdue.
50
Do you remember the commercial in which it was said, "Aunt Jemima, what took you so long?" Well, ditto to Facebook.
4
Good. These people are the scourge of fake news and conspiracy theories.
18
Still, the person most worthy of being banned - Trump - isn’t because is racist, sexist, evil tweets and posts are deemed “newsworthy”.
22
We can only hope Twitter enforces it's own rules and stops trump's hate speech, racism, misogyny and name calling...
43
I would accept a deal. He can keep his hate speech, racism, misogyny and name calling. In return he has to give up lying, or at least reduce his lies to the level of a normal politician.
2
Good! It's about time.
19
Could Trump be next at Twitter?
Chance would be a fine thing...
11
Is this about far-right (as someone commented)? Is this even political? Or is it about attempting to curb the power of media to spread what is actual fabrication and truly fake news?
6
Finally! Thank you, Mark! At least some sense of normalcy can return. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean anything goes.
11
They were the ones who help me decide to cancel my Facebook, and other things about Facebook.
11
Good to hear of course but what is needed is anti-trust legislation against scale of this behemoth - FB should not be able to own WhatsApp or Instagram and have access to their customer data. The issues of policing content or misuse of data must be backed by the force of law. The free-market gave us this free-wheeling, privacy-crushing monster. Time to regin it in!
33
@Mark ~
Sorry, but do you want the government, from any side or opinion or religion or .... overseeing this?
Traditionally, this type of technology is 5 - 8 years ahead of what the government can do.
2
@John Hanzel
Reining in mega corporations that abuse anti trust legislation has nothing to do with government overseeing a specific entity. It does prevent the entity, whatever it is, from becoming so large under one umbrella that it removes competition in the field.
This has nothing to do with religion or government opinion. In fact, when industries are controlled by one corporation, their power of the pocketbook (thanks to Citizens United) results in their controlling government.
2
It would be interesting to see the financial calculations that went into that Zuckerberg decision. Without any real sense of citizenship that couldn't have been a factor.
14
Mr. Zuckerberg no longer needs provocateurs.
He does well enough on his own.
Its window dressing, and means little compared to the amount of personal information taken from people online.
At least without the inflammatory rhetoric people can focus on what's being done to them by these companies such as Facebook, Google, Verizon media. and so on.
24
About time! Let's hope for more enforcement against more far-right organizations on more social media sites.
154
@Greg How do you define a "far right organization?" Where is the line where speech becomes unacceptable?
12
@AnneSN
The line is set by the owner of the platform in their terms and conditions. If you violate those, you've crossed that line. This is not complicated.
29
@AnneSN
Do you have a child? Let's say your child was gunned down in a school shooting. And in the midst of your grief, an internet "personality" proclaims that the school shooting was a hoax and your child isn't really dead. Or that you don't really have a child and are really an agent of the Liberal Deep State. And then he eggs on his followers to harass you, which they promptly do.
Is that enough to consider this instance of "speech" to be "unacceptable?" ESPECIALLY when the government isn't involved and it's a decision made by a private company that has a reach of over a billion users?
This has NOTHING to do with government censorship and EVERYTHING to do with whether we want to maintain some basic standards of decency in our society.
46
It's about time. Hate is never the answer and those who seek to harm others for personal gain should never be given a platform.
275